
No one should have to travel in fear - geofft
https://medium.com/@andreasgal/no-one-should-have-to-travel-in-fear-b2bff4c460e5
======
dragonwriter
Here's the thing:

If it was a legitimate search with real public security purpose, there is no
excuse for letting him go without completing the search.

If it was not a legitimate search with real public purpose, there is no excuse
for the threats or retaliation.

 _Irrespective_ of the legitimacy of the search, the behavior here is
unjustifiable.

~~~
neilv
Some other possibilities come to mind, and perhaps there are more:

* It was a legitimate search wrt information available at the time, and then more/better information became available, and it was no longer legitimate. (Assuming a certain definition of "legitimate".)

* It was a legitimate search, and cloning and/or compromising the devices took time.

(Just devil's advocate, for intellectual curiosity, not disagreeing with
public interest concern.)

~~~
geofft
My reading of [https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-
NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._El...](https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-
NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._Electronic_Device_Search_SFO.pdf) is that they didn't
take the devices out of his sight/control, they just demanded he unlock them
and hand them over.

> _CBP officers searched Dr. Gal’s wallet and all his luggage, and asked
> questions about everything they found. When they discovered Dr. Gal’s Apple-
> issued electronic devices, the officers first asked Dr. Gal to pull up his
> itinerary on his mobile phone, and then to hand the unlocked device over to
> CBP. Dr. Gal responded that he would email them the itinerary, but that he
> would need to speak with a lawyer and his employer before giving CBP
> officers full access to his mobile phone._

...

> _Moreover, there was no reason for any CBP officers—TTRT or otherwise—to
> detain and interrogate Dr. Gal or his devices. Notably, CBP officers did not
> confiscate and retain Dr. Gal’s devices, which they were authorized to do
> under the Directive and presumably would have done if they truly felt that
> they possessed a basis for detaining Dr. Gal or keeping his devices. See
> Directive, § 5.3.3. Instead, CBP officers proceeded to demand that Dr. Gal
> provide immediate, unlimited access to his devices._

------
komali2
Dunno what to do about this. I think TSA is a sham and a waste of my money. I
think border control is taking my money and using it to abuse people. I don't
think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport.

I've written my reps and the president, I call about once a month, but it has
no measurable effect. Smarter people than me have done audits on TSA and
published them in famous newspapers to show how useless they are. There's
people fighting against CBP locking up asylum seekers but it still happens.

Dunno what to do. Partner and I are considering abandoning the USA.

~~~
zachberger
You don't have to pay to bypass the lines. The free "Mobile Passport" app
allows you to go into a line is almost as quick as Global Entry.

~~~
geofft
Global Entry gets you two things: a faster line when you re-enter the US, and
membership in TSA Pre-Check. For me, Pre-Check is far more useful, because
most of my travel is domestic (and it also helps you on the outbound portion
of international travel).

~~~
avarun
Precheck alone is $15 cheaper.

~~~
imgabe
Or to put it another way, Global Entry is only $15 if you're already buying
PreCheck.

Global Entry paid for itself the first time I used it when I made a connection
after going through customs that I definitely would have missed if I had to
wait in the regular line.

------
GeekyBear
Glen Greenwald started writing about this back in 2012.

>One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S.
citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little
attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of
Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no
crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when
they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even
seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other
papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their
contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No
oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S.
Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.

[https://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_de...](https://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/)

Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker whose story was told in the above
link faced several dozen of these incidents between the Bush and the Obama
years.

Interestingly, Edward Snowden learned who Poitras was from this series of
stories, and Poitras' experiences with repeated searches and seizures led to
her learning enough about encryption so that when Snowden decided to contact
the press and become a whistleblower, Poitras was the first journalist he
attempted to contact who knew enough to be able to exchange encryption keys
and communicate with him directly.

------
euphoria83
Although it is difficult to do so, maintaining your calm when faced by
intimidation by government agents generally works out. Andreas did exactly the
right thing - followed his gut calmly then, filed a case in the courts later.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
When did he file a case? It's not mentioned in the blog.

~~~
blattimwind
> It is in that spirit that I have filed a civil rights complaint with the
> help of the ACLU against CBP for unlawfully detaining me and violating my
> constitutional rights.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
Found the link someone else posted: [https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-
complaint-department-...](https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-
department-homeland-security-over-unwarranted-interrogation-and-attempted)

~~~
andreasgal
It's a OCRCL complaint: [https://www.dhs.gov/office-civil-rights-and-civil-
liberties](https://www.dhs.gov/office-civil-rights-and-civil-liberties)

------
_bxg1
Every time an article like this pops up (seems like a couple times a month
now), I'm validated in my decision to donate monthly to the ACLU. They're
always mentioned as fighting this stuff on the front lines.

~~~
jacquesm
Every time an article like this pops up I am validated in my decision to no
longer travel to the United States.

~~~
14
This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of
people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled
at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of
dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had
an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a
personal laptop with naked pictures of your wife and kids bathing. Especially
when we know it is all security theater. So I am with you. I will avoid the
USA for now until the climate changes.

~~~
smoe
Pretty much all Europeans I know working in Latin America that travel home 1-2
a year, avoid flights that go trough US airports even tough it would often be
the cheapest options by quite some margin. For me not having to deal with US
borders is worth the up to 300 USD difference in flight price.

I did it once back in 2008 for a flight from Costa Rica to Switzerland via
Miami and was caught completely by surprise that, unlike every other airport
in the world I have been prior, Miami (US in general?) did not have a separate
transit area, and that I had to go trough the whole customs and migration
circus for a 3 hour layover.

~~~
eswat
I just went through this circus for a 1.5-hour layover. Salt in the wound was
CBP having just 1 agent serving Non-US travellers for a 737 that just came
from Japan…

------
throw2016
This is becoming too common. Laura Poitras has documented her harassment as
have multiple others activists and journalists. The idea of opaque no fly and
other secret lists, secret processes and demanding to go through people's
personal papers is totalitarian.

If this happened in China or for instance Venezuela there is instant global
outrage about 'freedom' and yet every time the exact same thing happens in the
UK or the US the outrage is quickly replaced by legalese and apologism. Surely
if people cared so much about any of these values they would severely push
back when it happens in their own backyard but we rarely see that, just more
demonizing others which quickly loses meaning and becomes complicit in the
descent to a quasi police state.

Many who make sweeping statement about 'democracy' and 'freedom' seem to be
severely disconnected from things on the ground as those those who use these
'freedoms' in any serious way in terms of actual activism or critical
journalism however slight end up on some kind of list and singled out for
harassment. [1]

[1] [https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/25/the-tsas-role-as-
jou...](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/25/the-tsas-role-as-journalist-
harasser-and-media-watchdog/)

------
cobbzilla
It's horrible but the case-law seems fairly well settled; various courts have
ruled that lots of searches that would otherwise violate the 4th Amendment are
totally permissible for CBP agents within 100 miles of the border and at
customs checkpoints within international airports. I'd love to be surprised if
there is a legitimate case here.

~~~
geofft
Sure, but you should still have the right to have a lawyer confirm that for
you, no? The entire reason we have the right to legal representation is that
individuals are not expected to understand all the case law in the country. A
lawyer can totally say "Yeah, they're allowed to search you, unlock your
phone"—but the ability to confirm that with a lawyer is an important right.

~~~
the_watcher
The right to an attorney is actually limited to criminal defendants, so if
they don't charge you with anything, you aren't actually afforded that
protection Constitutionally. So if they just detain you, they can credibly
ignore this. I'm not 100% sure on how Miranda rights apply to border detainee
situations, but if they do apply, you'd get a phone call. If they don't, your
options are basically to wait them out.

------
brlewis
_They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border
despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately
comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111._

The Justice dept refutes the part about 18 USC 111. A forcible act must be
involved, not passive resistance: [https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-
resource-manual-1565-for...](https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-
manual-1565-forcible-act-required-18-usc-111-application-statute-threats)

------
telesilla
You're not alone. I've cut my U.S. travel significantly in the last years due
to what I've experienced as hostile border agents for reasons I could never
quite figure out but probably related to my nomadic lifestyle. I'm not a U.S.
citizen but I do come from a "friendly" nation and it's shameful some of the
things that have been said to me in an effort to catch me out in a lie that
didn't exist.

------
rajbot
> The agents proceeded to search my belongings and demanded that I unlock my
> smartphone and laptop. This was rather concerning for me. My phone and
> laptop are property of my employer and contain unreleased software and
> proprietary information. I’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement promising
> not to give anyone access.

His employer is Apple. I was always worried about this same scenario when
traveling with an Apple-owned laptop..

~~~
techslave
if his employer is apple then he is fine to unlock. all such employers
_require_ you to follow border agent instructions. that said he may be in
violation of a policy not to travel with proprietary info

~~~
mediocrejoker
> that said he may be in violation of a policy not to travel with proprietary
> info

How is this policy supposed to work? Seems like it would a huge pain point for
any sort of travel.

~~~
Marsymars
My company issues travel-specific devices that are only used for web-based
services via VPN.

------
autotune
It’s good he has the ACLU on his side and is working with them, they are the
one non-profit org I actually donate to every month.

------
jbhatab
Fantastic that he posted his experience, but it sounded like a pretty standard
experience with authorities for many Americans. Genuinely curious why this is
news compared to what happens to many other people?

~~~
geofft
As a Global Entry holder myself I expect that because the government has done
a background check on me, has my fingerprints, etc., it generally understands
that (despite my Indian skin, unshaved stubble, and vote for Hillary) I am not
a threat. I have voluntarily subjected myself the government conducting a
background check and holding files / information on me in exchange for less
hassle. So part of it is that it's baffling they would detain a Global Entry
holder and effectively remove his Global Entry status without explanation.

(For what it's worth, I helped my family move cross-country by car in summer
2016; we passed a "border" checkpoint in New Mexico or so, on I-10 relatively
far from the border, where they stopped each car, asked us if we were
citizens, and let us go on our way when I answered yes. That seems like a much
more "standard" experience than what's here.)

Part of it is denial of a lawyer. As I understand it, you might not have a
right to deny the search, but you should still have access to counsel, because
the point of legal representation is that they can tell you exactly what
rights you do / don't have.

Part of it is an apparent government focus on Mozilla. Andreas Gal hasn't been
at Mozilla for about four years, but that's what they asked him about. And
there was the visa denial for Daniel Stenberg (author of curl) when heading to
the Mozilla all-hands: [https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-
purgat...](https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgatory/)

And finally, part of it is that it _shouldn 't_ be common. It's a good reason
for individuals and companies to leave America.

~~~
mchristen
I'm an American and I have been detained and searched by CBP without actually
ever leaving the country. They didn't ask my name, just that we needed to get
out of the car while they let their dog search the car.

~~~
maximilianroos
You don't have to get out of the car. CBP only have power to stop you to
ascertain the citizenship of the passengers. They need reasonable suspicion to
further detain you, or probable cause to search you or your car.

You can consent to the search, but you don't need to. If you refuse consent
and they lack probable cause, the evidence would be suppressed.

For more details: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-
right...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-
detention/your-rights-border-zone)

~~~
mchristen
He claimed their dog indicated on our car... but that's a bunch of BS because
the dog was already sitting next to them when we pulled up and didn't do
anything further(exactly the same thing the dog did for the car in front of
us).

He then tried to get us to say we had personal use amounts of drugs on us and
he was only looking for massive amounts of narcotics(the "amount cartels have"
according to him).

I was with a friend who was not a US citizen but is here legally on a work
visa, they took his documents and left me alone while the dog ran through the
truck.

And to be honest, do you really think I'm going to put up a fight when I
haven't seen a shower in days and have a 7hr drive ahead of me?

We obviously fit a profile of sorts because the first words out of his mouth
when we pulled up were to pull to the side because his dog indicated on us and
he needed to search our car.

~~~
maximilianroos
If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car. They can take
detain you and search every nook and cranny of both the car and its
passengers.

Again - nothing distinct about being near the border for that.

As you said, it's not objective whether the dog legitimately signaled. But
IIUC you have limited ability to demonstrate that. (anyone know of cases
around this?)

~~~
u801e
> If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car.

In other words:

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states: "The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless a dog barks."

~~~
jacobush
Unless a dog is directed by its handler to bark. _FTFY_

------
dmitrygr
A tip of my hat to the guy for not relenting and unlocking his devices under
threats of violence and staying silent! Well done!

------
_bxg1
Border Patrol has become the KGB. Hopefully this will reach a boiling point
soon and they'll harass someone important enough to get the gears actually
moving toward ending this madness.

~~~
hopler
No. If they find someone important they just let him go with an apology. Penn
Jillette fought them years ago and refused their apology; it went nowhere.

------
the_fonz
It's analogous to police "searching" a homeless person by throwing, tearing up
and destroying all of their property without even reasonable suspicion... they
do it and get away with murdering people time-after-time because they can
under a thinly-duplicitous cover of qualified immunity (at least in the US).

Although police at the borders don't have to have any reasonable suspicion for
searches, racial profiling, secret watch lists and targeted intimidation are a
likely consequent of an unfettered military-industrial complex that long since
ceased to do more than security theater and carry water for the corporate
elites. So it should come with zero surprise that such an empire's law
enforcement acts with impunity however it pleases and only ensures to "serve
and protect" the rich elites' and their property, effectively creating a
socioeconomic apartheid of gated communities and post-apocalyptic anarchist
favelas, both in terms of geography and public discrimination, that tears a
society apart into a failed, third-world, backwards country.

------
jedberg
Immigration lawyers: What is the right thing to do when you are detained at
the border as a US citizen?

------
withinrafael
How does a layperson without retained counsel handle this? Is there an ACLU
hotline? Do I need to be prepared with a number in my wallet?

~~~
_bxg1
They didn't even give him the chance to make a call. You're completely
helpless unless you've done your research and come up with a game plan ahead
of time.

------
Rafuino
Going on a trip in the short term and just got a phone with facial recognition
unlock. I think it's important to turn this feature off before returning to
the US as it could easily be misused in this exact situation.

~~~
zachr
On an iPhone, you can tap the power button five times consecutively to disable
biometric access. However, I think the only way to do this on a MacBook with
TouchID is turning it off.

~~~
bigzyg33k
You could also ensure you turn off the MBP before you enter customs, as it
requires a password on startup

------
mindfulhack
This needs to be challenged to the Supreme Court level whereby it is deemed
unconstitutional for TSA agents to detain and seize people and their
possessions without actual demonstrable cause relating to national security
and/or the spirit of the law(s) governing their policies and procedure.

If overly broad legislation is being abused against the spirit and intention
of it, then the court needs to step in to legally to rule that this cannot be
done, so long as such finding is in line with the constitution.

~~~
hopler
Won't happen until Donald Trump's justices retire.

~~~
masonic
Justice _s_? Trump has nominated exactly one.

~~~
erik_seaberg
And this ridiculous customs policy probably dates back to the Clinton
administration. I know it was perennial ragebait on Slashdot.

------
techslave
i love how “the time is long overdue”. everyone says that when it happens to
them. he’s not wrong, but we need more folks that don’t sit around as if it’s
someone else’s problem.

------
Mizza
Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the
right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant
or not?

~~~
CharlesColeman
> Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have
> the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search
> warrant or not?

IIRC, if you're a citizen, they have the power to seize your devices (and
anything else you have, for that matter) and temporarily delay/detain you, but
not to force you to unlock anything. They can't deny you entry.

If you're _not_ a citizen, then they can deny you entry. So you might have to
choose to unlock your devices for them to return home to the US or avoid
having your travel plans ruined.

[https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/privacy-
borders...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/privacy-borders-and-
checkpoints/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic)

~~~
krastanov
Indeed, they can not "force" you to unlock the device, however they can deny
you entry to the country unless you open the device (although it seems this
has not been thoroughly tested in the courts).

~~~
CharlesColeman
> however they can deny you entry to the country unless you open the device

I think that's only true for noncitizens, they're required to let citizens in.
Sorry, I think I was in the middle of updating my post as you replied.

------
prawn
Border responses are little different to the support the average person gets
from a tech giant. You get the response you get and that’s it. You need deep
pockets, serious friends or an online furore or you have no choice but to
remain oblivious. As with the tech giants, for the decent people caught up by
mistake, it’s frustrating and terrifying.

------
dirkg
CBP/TSA/DHS are thugs who have virtually unlimited power, zero accountability,
and relish the chance to abuse their power. Its no different from cops
celebrating killing innocent people.

The US media is a joke, they drump up fear without holding anyone in govt
accountable, and the people are stupid, no one cares about this kind of thing,
they'd rather believe the usual nonsense about 'keeping us safe'.

------
gcbw2
> but agents confiscated Gal's Global Entry card

The irony (and borderline hypocrisy) of a "privacy advocate" who have a Global
Entry card.

------
caprese
> The customs agents did however keep my Global Entry card as a punishment

?????

You never need your global entry card at airport customs because your flight
information is encoded to your passport, which the machine scans.

Was that supposed to be punishment? Why did he even have it? Does the Global
Entry number still work and automatically give you TSA Pre on the new tickets
you purchase?

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry, which they can do arbitrarily
and I'd be surprised if "you didn't comply with our arbitrary demands" wasn't
explicitly listed as one of the specific examples of reasons for revoking it.

~~~
caprese
> I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry

instead of assuming can we get an answer? OP? ACLU? The author mentioned he
has taken flights since then, he should be able to answer if he still gets TSA
Pre, nobody's asked yet

its just as likely that they literally only took the card from him.

~~~
andreasgal
They found the card with my passport. They took the card, and a few days later
my status was revoked as well.

~~~
geofft
Are you in the process of trying to get it reinstated, or not yet? (The ACLU
letter doesn't seem to include a demand for reinstating it, but I guess you'd
be approaching it in some other way)

------
throwawaystale
He's saying he was targeted because he's known to disapprove of the Trump
administration? Please. If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016.

A better question would be why someone technically knowledgeable would be
carrying a laptop through airline security at all. As soon as it's out of your
hands, you have to assume it's been blown, security-wise. Far better to just
buy a burner Chromebook at your destination.

~~~
geofft
Taking a laptop through airport security as a carry-on doesn't involve letting
it out of your hands. (I assume they do not hire hobbits to hide inside the
X-ray machine and implant hardware on your motherboard.)

~~~
throwawaystale
Let's just say I have a lot or respect for the possibilities I'm aware of,
together with a general sense that there's a lot that I _don 't_ know.

In any case, just because you _usually_ get your laptop handed right back, it
doesn't follow that you always will. If it matters to you, buy that burner.

~~~
geofft
Even so:

1\. I can expect that there's a chance that my laptop will be taken from me
(and perhaps returned modified or perhaps taken permanently) while still not
being okay with that. It's one thing to expect a right to be violated; it's
another thing to give up.

2\. It's not unreasonable to travel with a laptop while expecting a small
chance that it's taken, in which case you'll buy a new one and restore from
backup, instead of buying a burner every time.

~~~
Marsymars
Seems easier to buy a "burner" at home though, and then it's indefinitely
reusable.

