Customs Officials Have Copied Americans' Phone Data at Massive Scale (washingtonpost.com) 75
SpzToid writes: U.S. government officials are adding data from as many as 10,000 electronic devices each year to a massive database they've compiled from cellphones, iPads and computers seized from travelers at the country's airports, seaports and border crossings, leaders of Customs and Border Protection told congressional staff in a briefing this summer. The rapid expansion of the database and the ability of 2,700 CBP officers to access it without a warrant -- two details not previously known about the database -- have raised alarms in Congress about what use the government has made of the information, much of which is captured from people not suspected of any crime. CBP officials told congressional staff the data is maintained for 15 years.
Details of the database were revealed Thursday in a letter to CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who criticized the agency for "allowing indiscriminate rifling through Americans' private records" and called for stronger privacy protections. The revelations add new detail to what's known about the expanding ways that federal investigators use technology that many Americans may not understand or consent to. Agents from the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another Department of Homeland Security agency, have run facial recognition searches on millions of Americans' driver's license photos. They have tapped private databases of people's financial and utility records to learn where they live. And they have gleaned location data from license-plate reader databases that can be used to track where people drive.
Details of the database were revealed Thursday in a letter to CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who criticized the agency for "allowing indiscriminate rifling through Americans' private records" and called for stronger privacy protections. The revelations add new detail to what's known about the expanding ways that federal investigators use technology that many Americans may not understand or consent to. Agents from the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another Department of Homeland Security agency, have run facial recognition searches on millions of Americans' driver's license photos. They have tapped private databases of people's financial and utility records to learn where they live. And they have gleaned location data from license-plate reader databases that can be used to track where people drive.
Right (Score:5, Funny)
adding data from as many as 10,000 electronic devices each year to a massive database they've compiled from cellphones, iPads and computers seized from travelers at the country's airports, seaports and border crossings...run facial recognition searches on millions of Americans' driver's license photos. They have tapped private databases of people's financial and utility records to learn where they live. And they have gleaned location data from license-plate reader databases that can be used to track where people drive.
On the bright side they are quite concerned about the security of your TikTok data.
Re: Right (Score:5, Funny)
Trump was. He wanted to ban TikTok. Republicans are concerned still which is why TikTok execs were hauled in front of congress today. Democrats however are not concerned. I wonder why?
Because your private data may be safer in China where CBP and DHS can't access it.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you were shooting for Funny here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you were shooting for Funny here.
"It's funny because it is true" - H. Simpson
Re: (Score:1)
Trump was
No he wasn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A proposal was produced that would have seen Oracle and Walmart owning a US entity of the service, and taking responsibility for handling TikTok's US user data and content moderation.
If there is one thing America's ruling class is united on, it is the sanctity of property rights, and if the president can declare something a threat to national security and turn it over to someone else with a wave of his hand, then who is next?
Nobody who was paying attention thought any of that was a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Property rights actually just means that if the government takes it, they have to pay for it.
Oh, right, you're that British idiot who named his account after a television idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
So did you forget the bit where the president of your stupid government used an executive order?
Jesus Christ, I'm the idiot? Also, not British. Idiot.
Re: Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump really should have banned TikTok as the national security risk that it truly is. The CCP is not gifting TikTok to the world for free just to be nice. They WILL use it against us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability... (Score:1, Funny)
"the ability of 2,700 power-tripping pigfuckers whose mothers should have had an abortion to..."
There! Fixed the summary!
Surprise! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is shocking and was completely unforeseeable.
I just can't believe it!
Re:Surprise! (Score:4)
I wonder how this database compares to the one Microsoft has built from all its spying on users of Windows 10 and 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprise! (Score:5, Informative)
The lack of diversity in the tech workforce means that Microsoft using it's employees as test subjects reinforces bias in training based biometric algorithms. When the test set is primarily a bunch of white guys what else do you expect?
The Problem of Bias in Facial Recognition [csis.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nuh uh! They already trained a different AI on how to apply blackface to all those input photos!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greeting, good sir.
Let me (re)introduce you to Pine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
May the evil automation thingies never haunt you again.
Dr Mr Wyden (Score:3, Insightful)
Please join your colleagues in congress and emasculate DHS and CBP by allowing them to only interact with non-citizens, and restrict them to 2 miles of US land borders with other countries, and 2 feet from the customs windows at international airports located within the U.S.
Re: Dr Mr Wyden (Score:4, Insightful)
Never understood why Americans ("citizens") think basic human rights only apply to them and not to those other couple of billion humans ("non-citizens") that are not born in the land of the free.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Dr Mr Wyden (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple: they consider all foreigners to be sub-human. It's the same way that a bunch of slave-owners could sign a document proclaiming it self-evident that liberty is an unalienable right of all men.
Re: (Score:3)
While the American theory of government is that governments have enumerated powers and people have unenumerated rights, there are in fact a few legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens in the US. Most relevant to the current topic, under American law an American citizen cannot be denied entry into the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Some do, and there's some truth to the allegations of racism in the other replies you've gotten. For others, such as myself, it's more of a recognition that, however noble our intentions might be, our government's authority should stop at our border, authorized foreign bases, our flagged ships at sea, etc. I personally think that we should protect *human* rights inside our borders, whether the people involved are citizens or not. I'd also LIKE for other countries to do the same for their citizens... but tha
Only concerned about their own data (Score:4, Insightful)
There's plenty of criminal activity done on the cellphones of those serving in Congress. That puts "raised alarms in Congress" in a whole new light.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the way it's gotta be though. All politicians are always evil. It's in the nature of the job that good people get pushed out right at the gate. So, the best thing we can do is keep them invested in the consequences of their decisions, so that things that harm us harm them too. And, of course, transparency as to their activities.
equivalence? (Score:5, Insightful)
"if you aren't burglarizing anyone, you have nothing to worry about with them imaging your phone."
--Slashdot commenters in the article about the lady's rape kit DNA being kept
Re: (Score:2)
"if you aren't burglarizing anyone, you have nothing to worry about with them imaging your phone."
--Slashdot commenters in the article about the lady's rape kit DNA being kept
A false equivalence. The burglar scum was caught by her ID. The airport equivalent would be retaining your fingerprints, which the US has been doing for 20 years.
Retaining phone data would be more like if rape victims homes were searched routinely for stolen property, but that is not remotely what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
A false equivalence. The burglar scum was caught by her ID. The airport equivalent would be retaining your fingerprints,
p.s. nothing I said should be interpreted as defending the use of victim DNA for prosecution. Both are wrong to me.
But the two cases are sufficiently different that I can respect the opinions of those who disagree.
GP (sound+vision) should be able to make a better argument, rather than just mocking others.
Re: (Score:2)
Objectively, not wrong.
You know what they say (Score:3)
Good thing most entering the US these days. (Score:2)
These types of things is why.. (Score:4, Interesting)
.. one of the companies we work with have separate travel laptops and phones that people are to take when they go abroad.
Re: (Score:3)
unconstitutional (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
supreme court?
you really want to risk going to THEM?
I dont. I want no cases put before them. not for the next, oh, 50 or so years.
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal in border areas.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.aclu.org/other/con... [aclu.org]
22 replies? (Score:2)
if this was about china doing this, who does this routinely and never ever hid the fact that they massively do this, i would expect 3 digit post numbers and several flame subthreads.
but it's about the us government, which is all about civil and individual rights, and about american citizens, and nobody seems to give a fuck ...
mmmmmkaaaaay ...
Re:22 replies? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1770s, the Founding Fathers said, "This is some gnarly bullshit, man, and we need some cool rules!" And thus they established the Constitution, with its 4th Amendment specifically outlawing this kind of behavior. They specifically guarded against unwarranted searches and seizures because the English were notorious for just breaking into a household, and swiping whatever, and arresting whomever they wanted. "Due process? Lol. Fuck that." And the people said, "Lo! This Constitution is good and will protect us from abusive government." But it didn't last long because it never does. As time goes by, the impetus, the underlying reason for these Amendments are forgotten, or some good and honest souls on the Supreme Court decide that the government should have the benefit of "just this one little loophole. It's for the greater good." And pretty soon, it's just, "Fuck the Constitution," and we end up in a fascist state, again. Tell me we're not largely there already. The cops can do just about anything - reminiscent of Red Coats - and they get a free pass from any accountability due to "qualified immunity," which is something made up by the SCOTUS in 1967.
Like I said, some of us recognize this, but we're a leaf against the tide. And it's a testament to the power of propaganda that you can get a person to loudly complain about those evil Chinese doing nefarious things like this, while applauding the same behavior from their own government. Useful idiots are the lubrication that aids gravity in pulling every government back down to it's lowest form.
Re: (Score:2)
they get a free pass from any accountability due to "qualified immunity," which is something made up by the SCOTUS in 1967
I agree that qualified immunity is a ridiculous construct created by the supreme court (and completely at odds with existing federal law) but as awful as qualified immunity is, it's not what you claim. It is not a "free pass from any accountability" but rather prevents law enforcement officers who violate your rights in ways that are not "clearly established" violations (which is even more fucked up) cannot be sued personally for civil damages.
Contrary to popular belief, qualified immunity does not protect
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, qualified immunity does not protect cops from criminal liability, nor does it shield their employer (city / county / whatever) from civil liability.
https://www.cpr.org/2022/09/15... [cpr.org]
So, do you s'pose we'll see a criminal indictment announced soon? Why was the cop allowed to resume patrol so shortly after this unnecessary shooting? I'd like to believe your sentiment, but we see far too many of these killings, and far too little accountability. Prosecution and actual jail time are a rare thing, such that they are newsworthy in themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you here about police accountability, but the problem you're describing has nothing to do with qualified immunity. The problem is with prosecutors who simply don't indict police officers for conduct that is absolutely criminal.
Re: (Score:1)
If you don't think so you are a pedophilia...
Re: (Score:1)
If you don't think so you are a pedophile...
ps fuckn autocorrect
Apple should buy Customs (Score:3)
then Customs can just access Apple's iCloud backups straightaway.
The data lifetime (Score:1)
CBP officials told congressional staff the data is maintained for 15 years.
Which is as long as the program has been running: since iOS phones became a thing in 2007 and Android the year after.
Next year the retention period will be 16 years. They don't have any processes in place to actually clean up and expunge this data, they just keep adding to it.
10,000 per year (Score:2)
10,000 electronic devices each year
So, this is just a small amount that a big deal will be made of, because it is a government agency involved. This would seem to be a TARGETED attack, rather than a general-purpose one, since more than 10,000 people pass through customs PER DAY.
Granted, it's interesting, but it is a rather specific number of people involved. Was someone who is important to the congressman involved?
Re: 10,000 per year (Score:3)
This. 2.9 million passengers pass through US airports every day. 927 million annually. 10,000 per year is one in every 100,000 passengers. That's extremely targeted.
https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/f... [bts.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
GP is correct that this is not a general collection, but your numbers are wrong and probably off by at least an order of magnitude. Of those 2.9 million passengers, the vast majority are domestic and not international, and of the international travelers, only those coming into the US interact with CBP--the US does not do exit visas.
Re: 10,000 per year (Score:2)
Yeah good point and I realized too late that TFA actually has the most relevant number: ..."more than 179 million people traveled that year [2021] through U.S. ports of entry."
So not off by an order of magnitude, but much less than 900 million. Nonetheless your chances of being in the 10,000 group is really small.
Given *how* targeted it is, I would be more interested in knowing what about those 10,000 devices made CBP want to steal/store their data. E.g. were these people whose passports had been flagged f
Share your experiences and stories. Threat model? (Score:1)
I sometimes have to fly via places like the USA and it's always a debate as to what to do about my data.
I mean, we all carry phones and even in the airport, we're going to need that phone.
Is it feasible to wipe the phone on every border crossing? Is it feasible to have a quick wipe option before handoff? Is it more practical to reduce what data is actually on the phone? What's the best practice here for passing through China, for example?
- logout of your password manager, for example
- logout of any apps tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This is the perfect example of not doing any threat modelling at all, and just lazily defaulting to the easy answer.
100 miles (Score:2)
How much can they read? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking! (Score:2, Insightful)
CBP think they are not bound by the law ... (Score:2)
....They have detained serving US military personnel whilst demanding access to military issue secure laptops that they have no right to access whatsoever ... ...and if they accessed they could be charged with espionage
Just refuse? (Score:2)
If you are an American citizen, and customs say "let me have your phone" - surely you have the right to refuse? I mean, you are returning to your own country. They cannot (afaik) deny you entry. After they have checked your passport, legally you can "no thanks" to any further questions or processing, and walk past the checkpoint.
Of course, the tin-pot dictators will not want to accept that. Likely you will be forcibly detained for a few hours, just to assert their power. However, if some reasonable number
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the article! (Score:2)
Virtual Papers (Score:2)
Here's the context: You have a 4th Amendment right against searches of, among other things, your "papers", without a warrant. This is to stop the king from hassling enemies using the government's power of investigation. Such people tend to be more powerful and wealthy people themselves, and probably have violated some law or other if you look closely enough.
Which is the goal of the king: to hurt opponents.
But the government asserts a power to look through all the papers you carry when you enter the coun