This directive was issued in January of this year, what is relevance of being posted today?

I love all the instances where it says, we will not do this or infringe in this way... unless it is a matter of national security, which we don't have to disclose to you. So basically, do what you want as long as you write it up properly.

And this part: 5.3 Review and Handling of Passcode-Protected or Encrypted Information 5.3.1 Travelers are obligated to present electronic devices and the information contained therein in a condition that allows inspection of the device and its contents. If presented with an electronic device that is protected by a passcode, encryption, or other security mechanism, an officer may request the individual's assistance in presenting the electronic device and the information contained therein in a condition that allows inspection of the device and its contents. Passcodes or other means of access may be requested and maintained for the duration of the search if needed to facilitate the examination of an electronic device or information contained on an electronic device, including information on the device that is accessible through software applications present on the device that is being inspected or has been detained, seized, or retained in accordance with this Directive.

I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing. That goes against the obligated to present devices in a condition that allows inspection portion.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing.

Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. If you're a citizen, they can't deny your re-entry. They can delay you for however long and ruin your day and even keep your devices, but you get to go home.

▲

ChrisMarshallNY 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Here's a fun story from about 20 years ago: https://www.wired.com/2007/04/canadian-psycho/

Not new (I love the URL shortening)

▲

huslage an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It ONLY applies to citizens. The CBP cannot deny an American citizen entry into the country for any reason. They cannot compel a citizen to unlock their devices. All bets are off for non-citizens, sadly.

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device

>Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US.

That's exactly what "you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device" means? You won't get sent to the gulag for refusing to, but entry into the US was always conditional with very little room for recourse if the border agent doesn't like you.

▲

dylan604 an hour ago | parent [-]

Not really sure what you're arguing, but it's not an answer to my question

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent [-]

You don't "have to", but they can deport you and refuse entry in the future in retaliation. It's a variant of the TSA not being able to "compel" you to a search, but they can refuse you from flying.

▲

two_handfuls 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The question was: "Does that apply to non-citizens?"

Saying "they can deport you" without specifying whether the hypothetical "you" is a citizen or not means you did not answer the question.

Not that you have to answer a stranger's question, but I thought I would clear the confusion in the hope it may be helpful.

	▲	gruez 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The premise (non-citizen) is in the question and doesn't need to be repeated. C'mon, this isn't grade school where you have to answer questions by first restating the question in its entirety.

▲

DANmode 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They can lie, and pretend you’re uncooperative,

or that their investigation took longer than the duration until your intended flight,

but, no, they can’t legally refuse you from flying without cause or suspicion.

▲

44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

phoronixrly 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think assuming that the CBP will adhere to the law is based on a pretty outdated mindset. I'd say at least since the current management, but more likely since 9/11...

	▲	thankyoufriend 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'd even call it a delusional mindset. For context, CBP and ICE were both formed in 2003. Jenn Budd has several books on this topic if you want to understand why a growing number of people want to abolish CBP, ICE, and even the entire DHS, which itself was formed only a year prior in 2002. These are very recent organizations in our nation's history, and if we're fine putting things like the Dpt of Education on the chopping block, why not DHS?

▲

bdcravens an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> what is relevance of being posted today

Not sure about today specifically, but it is pretty relevant with the World Cup starting in 2 weeks

▲

mtremsal 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the context is just mass international travel due to the US hosting the World Cup, no?

▲

crm9125 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]