> The department data reveals that close to 94% of the time people freely revealed their phone passcode to officers, despite there being no legal requirement to do so.
There really needs to be better education in civics. It's so important to know your rights, especially when someone in a position of authority tries to abuse that authority.
As far as I know, in the US you can politely decline a phone search if you are a US citizen. If you're a foreign tourist your only choice is either to allow the search or be denied entry to the Land of Freedom™
At the US international border, no, even US citizens can’t prevent the phone search regardless of whether or not they consent. They can however usually decline to give a PIN, passcode, or password or to assist in unlocking the phone by entering such a credential, and they can’t be refused entry to the US. However, CBP can then temporarily seize the phone to perform a more comprehensive attempt at searching it. Getting the phone back later may be a hassle.
Additionally, pissing off CBP may lead to extended delays, luggage searching, and questioning to see if they can find another legally valid reason to punish you for annoying them. And maybe they might revoke trusted traveler program membership due to no longer seeing you as a low-risk traveler. But indeed, they will not finally refuse entry to a citizen.
There are rarer cases where the US government can insist on your cooperation in getting past a PIN, passcode, or password, such as if you show them that an incriminating document exists on your phone and then lock the phone before they can collect the evidence.
And while the exact boundary of the constitutional protections regarding face or fingerprint unlock is not authoritatively settled nationwide in the courts, it’s very likely weaker than for information you hold in your mind like a password.
I strongly suspect CBP can constitutionally require a US citizen entering at an international port of entry to assist with fingerprint or face unlock, though I admit I don’t know how physically they can force the matter if the person refuses. It wouldn’t surprise me if that would be grounds for arrest under at least some circumstances (maybe not all).
While I was born after 9/11, I'm think I've heard that these unprecedented powers were given to CBP (and other border agencies around the world) after that event.
Most people crossing any border face little friction like this, but when you dig in and see what border agents are allowed to do, it gets a bit unnerving. Especially so for the US, the self-proclaimed land of the free.
Consider this - the CBP is granted wide-reaching powers that can supersede what actual police are allowed to do. They're allowed to racially profile, discriminate, search or detain anyone for any reason - citizen or not. Search warrants aren't required. Punishments like refusing foreigners entry for no reason or marking citizens to be additionally screened for the rest of their life can't be contested and are absolute. They are insulated from being sued, and may not need to follow Freedom of Information requests (not sure if this was reverted or not). They can do any of this within 100 miles of any external US borders - a.k.a. most major cities in the country. You don't actually need to be crossing or have crossed a border to be held up. Freedom!
The more you read into it, the more it seems that the federal US government has written a black check in terms of what some people are allowed to do. In the vast majority of cases, border guards are reasonable and don't overstep any boundaries - but I'm confused at why Americans, with the culture of valuing individual freedoms over all, aren't concerned with the hypothetical consequences these powers provide.
> I'm confused at why Americans, with the culture of valuing individual freedoms over all, aren't concerned with the hypothetical consequences these powers provide.
I don't think this is as much of a "gotcha" it seems to be. People have all kinds of theoretical beliefs that they routinely violate in practice. It's just part of being human.
The way things like this are supposed to work in the real messy human world is that we encode these "freedoms"/rights into a constitution. We then have a judicial branch that protects these rights, irrespective of individual human inconsistency/hypocrisy. For border searches we have the relevant rights in the US constitution already. The problem is that the judicial branch has incorrectly ruled that protections like the 4th amendment don't apply at the border.
>they can't otherwise punish you for refusing to give them your password.
Except of course by denying you entry, marking you in some "no fly" blacklist, and other ways that are not oficially "punishments", but are very much so in practice...
> far as I know, in the US you can politely decline a phone search if you are a US citizen
Same with being filmed at the airport. Last time I passed through US airports there were signs that you're monitored and it goes to blah blah database, and that if you're a US citizen, you can request to be removed. If you're not, go fuck yourself and pray all your biometric data isn't stored at the cheapest possible vendor and about to be leaked.
The tone when entering any country is already quite serious (i.e. passengers must proceed according to airport/airline rules and processes).
Australia's inbound UX has a few additional aspects that make the tone more stern.
An announcement is made on inbound international flights' about fines/deportation for undeclared risks to biosecurity; minds start to wonder about the wooden chess board or leather belt; it's typical to second-guess or be a bit nervous, especially non-English speakers who only caught every second word.
A formal-looking document ('Incoming Passenger Card' [1]) must then be completed.
Airport staff are generally slightly authoritarian (Australia's aren't the worst in this regard, but it contributes to the vibe the passenger perceives).
After a passenger has experienced this serious tone for several hours, they could perceive further requests in the same context as being ones best not politely declined.
While you are legally required to hand over the passcode, they can confiscate the device for two weeks or more, which is probably a large deterrent for most people.
That's the point the article makes, you are _not_ legally required to hand over the password.
> Officers routinely ask travellers to provide their passcode or password to devices so they can be examined, but they do not have the power to compel passengers to hand over their passcodes,
Right, and grandparent has a typo. True you are not required to hand over the password, but they aren't required to give you back your phone if you don't.
> There is no limit on how long the devices can be held but the agency said the policy was to keep devices for no longer than 14 days unless it took longer to examine them.
Right. So they don't give you back your phone. You may get it a couple of weeks later. Very convenient for your trip.
... and they're doing it for purely punitive reasons. We all know they're not "examining" the phones in any meaningful way. It's too expensive and failure-prone.
This one is tricky. You just don't have the same rights when trying to enter a country as you do if you're stopped by the police. Border officials have the power to deny you entry and generally there's very little recourse if they do. This makes you way more vulnerable and likely to cooperate than you would, say, during a routine traffic stop.
Knowing your rights is not the same thing as asserting your rights against a gun-toting, uniformed agent of the state who threatens you with detention, confiscation, and violence if you don't self incriminate.
I've never understand why younger generations raised under constant surveillance, school metal detectors and always-on where's my kid apps will hold the privacy values older generations claim to revere.
There really needs to be better education in civics. It's so important to know your rights, especially when someone in a position of authority tries to abuse that authority.