"Or, to simply stop traveling to countries that refuse to play nice with the rights of foreigners. "
Which countries would those be? As far as I know, every country (or quasi-country, such as the EU) asserts the right to carry out a full inspection of anything crossing its border.
As far as I know, Swiss border police/customs officers (which often operate at random places in the country, not necessarily at the border) are not allowed to check the content of any electronic device without a search warrant.
They can ask you to unlock the phone and show the IMEI number when suspicious of theft, but that's about it.
With phones without sealed batteries, the IMEI(s) are usually printed on a sticker in the battery compartment. Samsung and Apple engrave the IMEI on the outer casing of sealed devices.
Always know where the manufacturer printed the IMEI, so you don't have to unlock the phone in front of police.
Of course, if you give them the IMEI it facilitates them listening to your phone calls and tracking your location. The 'checking for stolen phones' thing seems totally implausible to me.
It's quite effective, tbh. Stealing phones is still a way to net loads of money if you know a buyer who doesn't give a damn about the source. Hard-reset the phone so it appears clean and off you go.
The only vendor that actively prevents the usage of stolen phones is Apple, because the owner can remote-lock it even if the phone gets wiped via iCloud.
The ideal way would be if network operators cooperated by maintaining a list of "supposedly stolen" IMEI codes and alerted police if a matching phone tries to log in into the network.
IMEI is sent when you register to operator's network, so you get that kind of information anyway. Asking for IMEI at the border links person to a physical device so you have a complete set for tracking.
The point is that the problem "Listen to Ms Jane Robert's phone calls" goes from "Of all phones on the network, identify Ms Jane Robert's" to "Ms Jane Roberts has a phone with IMEI xxxx, log all traffic for all SIM identities; prepare implant for LG G5 sold with Vodafone config."
I think this is more an issue of practice than theory. Every country might claim the authority to search phones, but if they never actually use it, there is no concern entering those countries in a practical sense.
And considering that something like 0.01% of travelers into the US are ever affected by this, you could say in a practical sense there is no concern here either. That's basically a rounding error worth away from 0%.
In fact it sounds more like they generally target specific individuals based on their politics or whatever red flag gets thrown on them from the system. That's certainly dangerous in a way, but in essence harmless to the vast majority of us.
It doesn't appear that most countries are using this kind of search as a tool of political harassment or intimidation, while there's enough evidence that the US is for people to be concerned.
The same could be said about the proportion of innocent people who would be jailed without the presumption of innocence. Yet I still support the presumption of innocence, even though I personally have never needed it. It makes me feel safer and allows me to trust and cooperate with the authorities.
Yea, nice. The Government/Law enforcement harassing dissidents at the border is definitely equivalent to the Nazis rounding up and executing political and religious minorities. /s
Not to make light of this issue, it's a serious matter, but don't be ridiculous.
I'm not sure it's ridiculous to suggest that failing to stop law the misuse of law enforcement tools to harass dissidents early invites worse oppression later. These things have a way of ratcheting up until they get significant push back.
Maybe. Seems like the FBI and federal agencies were harassing dissidents a lot worse in the 60s and 70s through COINTELPRO than they are now. I don't know if it's really worse now so much as different with new avenues of harassment into our digital lives. You think dissidents weren't harassed at the border before everyone carried a cell phone?
The post I was replying to was basically a vague reference to creeping fascism/nazism, and then implying that the same is happening in the US and that we're on the brink of descending into nazism. It's stupid sophomoric comparison to make.
Yea we should fight back against this type of legal harassment. Sure it's similar to how nazis once operated. But what does that comparison really provide in this situation other than throwing FUD onto it. Do you really think the US is about to rise into the Fourth Reich? I mean seriously... even if you feel like Trump is the antichrist, this policy undoubtedly came into effect during the Bush/Obama years when laptops and cell phones became ubiquitous.
I think a lot of it is that there's so much more digital paper trail and so much more stuff is done electronically nowadays you can't as easily stop being a thorn in their side (i.e activist for some cause) without them continuing to treat you like one.
In the 1960s you could decide that you'd done enough and move to a new city across the country and get a fairly fresh start. Now any trivial interaction with "the system" would get you red flagged at every subsequent interaction.
The cops "randomly" stop an acquaintance of mine fairly regularly and give him much more crap ever since one of his kids got a misdemeanor speeding ticket (threshold is 20-over which is typical traffic speed in some places) in that vehicle with those plates.
>think the US is about to rise into the Fourth Reich?
Not literally but people have diverse sets of political beliefs. It's not a stretch to imagine individual groups that are for/against something being persecuted. Imagine how civil rights activists or the pro-socialist hippies would be treated today.
Are you able to provide sources for the position you put forth about similar US harassment of political dissidents decades ago?
Obama prosecuted more journalists and whistle blowers than any president in history.
And we're not talking about turning into Nazi Germany. We're talking about why government crimes against their own people, especially for political speech, should never be allowed to happen because they can result in worse outcomes than you would expect.
> And we're not talking about turning into Nazi Germany. We're talking about why government crimes against their own people, especially for political speech, should never be allowed to happen because they can result in worse outcomes than you would expect.
And Germany didn't turn up Nazi overnight. It's always a slippery slope to prosecute people for political purposes. What happens in Canada with it misuse of human rights tribunal and what happens in many other western countries where the social climate currently is that everyone considers to be okay to suppress free speech because someones feelings are hurt. It is not a human right to be able to silence uncomfortable opinions, yet it is exactly what we see in these phenomenon of social justice warriors only there is no justice there to be made. This entitlement and the need to control of others is actually what scares me the most. You see it everywhere, people in uniforms and people in academia specially social sciences.
That's not the point. The point is that when you say "the ends justify the means", you are putting the rule of law below what is personally convenient for you. And if you can do that, then anyone can do that. And when anyone can do that, then you have a clear path towards authoritarianism.
Hah. As a matter of fact, the Nazi movement did get started by harassing political dissidents, not by executing minorities. Although this took the form more akin to the AntiFa riots (the Nazi Brownshirts) than border inspections, but the targeted abuse to political dissidents was the same
They don't even let you into Iran without making you perjure yourself into pretending to be religious. "Atheist" or "none" is not an option on the form and is grounds for deportation or execution (if you're Iranian and renounce Islam).
If you're atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious, and are forced to declare a religion, just say "Unitarian Universalist". Official church doctrine is essentially, "believe whatever you want; spirituality is a deeply personal experience, yet it can be shared with others".
Which countries would those be? As far as I know, every country (or quasi-country, such as the EU) asserts the right to carry out a full inspection of anything crossing its border.