Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | righthand's commentslogin

> Distros are a bad use case for P2P anyway since you depend on upstream as soon as you start upgrading and installing packages.

This is true for any distribution method not just p2p. You can even download a nightly through torrents so what does it matter how the data is transferred if it’s always going to require `apt update`?


Yeah, I just use the "netinstaller" ISOs since it's much smaller and never needs to be updated. If I had a need for air-gapped/offline installs I'd either download a larger ISO or just manually install packages from .deb as needed.

Helloooo torrent and software crack sites spike. Goodbyeeee software sales.

So carry a separate device while traveling. Or wipe your phone, then restore after the border. This is just going to lead to a service that does this for you and the overreaching feds won’t be able to do anything about it.

And as far as I can tell you still don’t have to give them your pin code.


They don't need your pin, they can just hack the phone take all your data anyway. ICE has a contract with Cellebrite

Not really. Cellebrite isn't magic. If you have an up to date OS and a strong password not pin, encryption functions as it should. The best thing to do is simply have a travel phone.

Right now it seems GrapheneOS is the only OS capable of resisting Cellebrite.

Imaged encrypted volumes can be decrypted later. We're building massive amounts of compute with government bonds these days.

It's not magic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work most of the time.

From https://cellebrite.com/en/blog/the-access-gap-is-closed-what... :

Here’s what that looks like in practice in 2026:

iOS: Cellebrite supports access to the latest iPhone models and iOS versions, including both after-first-unlock (AFU) and before-first-unlock (BFU) states. Recent updates have introduced new AFU access methods for previously unsupported iOS device configurations, expanding the range of devices that can be accessed without requiring a prior unlock event.

Android: The latest releases restored and expanded full file system (FFS) extraction across a broad range of newer Android models, which is an area where the competitive landscape had seen fluctuation. Coverage now spans Samsung, Google Pixel and other major Android manufacturers at their current OS versions.


the worry is that this will be interpreted as tampering and cary consequences.

This would not be tampering, because you haven’t tampered with anything. The “evidence” is simply at home.

The law isn't a computer program. Intent matters.

Try proving intent when it’s a common practice. I’d even say it’s a best practice these days, especially for business.

You’re fearmongering. Find me a case of someone getting prosecuted for having a burner phone. It doesn’t exist.


If you're worried about that, you are not living in a free country anymore.

It's been somewhat established that having a wiped or basic phone is in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further.

They can investigate all they want, they can even detain you briefly, but if you are a citizen and there’s no evidence of a crime then they have to let you in.

And if you're not a citizen?

Then this does not apply. Best to consult a lawyer

They have more guns than you do, and these days, most of the judges are blindly and shamelessly on their side. They don't "have" to do jack.

You’re fearmongering. Despite what some may say, it’s not Nazi Germany. Rule of law still has sway.

Find me caselaw where a “basic” phone was used as valid evidence. Or where the phone was already empty when someone began to approach the border.


Rule of law still has sway.

Get back to me once the Good and Pretti homicides in Minneapolis have been prosecuted.


I said that it still has sway, not that it’s perfect. Your position basically amounts to “hide in bed and hope they don’t come for you”.

My position is that what happened to them could happen to you or me.

You don't seem concerned, though. So that's good. I guess.


The question isn’t whether something is merely possible. You could get struck by a moving ambulance tomorrow.

It’s about how likely something is.


Rule of Law was very strong in Nazi Germany. Everything that regime did was legal in Germany at the time.

If you really believe that the two are equivalent, I hope you’re taking action right now and not just posting on HN. Otherwise that would certainly speak poorly of your character.

I mean they'll shoot protesters execution-style and retroactively declare that person a terrorist before they've even done any investigations.

It's not Nazi Germany, but this administration has certainly demonstrated that they're not above inventing reasons to justify their actions later.


Despite the problems, this stuff is still a rarity among most people. And most people understand that.

It’s obviously getting worse, but that’s not a reason to give up all hope.


I don't think I disagree with anything you said. I think cynicism is lazy.

Do you have any references to this?


That doesn't support the proposition that carrying a new or previously-cleaned phone across the border is cause for suspicion. In that case, the defendant wiped the phone after he was encountered by CBP.

It's abundantly clear when a phone is new or previously-cleaned, they would consider that cause for suspicion all the same.

Clear from what? Cite examples where this has happened, please.

Step 1: Person is detained. Step 2: They wipe their phone on the spot. Step 3: Police say they're hiding evidence.

If step 2 happens at the border post detention, or prior to arrival at the border, the perspective to the police is all the same, they see a wiped phone. Police detained somebody, saw they had a wiped phone. Doesn't matter when they wiped it.

Common sense...


The law distinguishes between not bringing evidence to a law enforcement encounter and destroying it in the middle of one.

Please, ask an attorney and educate yourself before you continue.


"The law" doesn't operate by standard norms at the border, almost like you missed the point of the original article. If they want to charge you with something, they'll find a way to do it. Not sure which version of the US you live in where all government actions follow the letter of the law, but it's not where the rest of us are.

Read Samuel Tunick's article again:

> Customs and Border Protection officers wanted to search his phone. After questioning, he eventually turned it over but gave officers a passcode that then erased the contents of his Google Pixel phone.

If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same.

> Please, ask an attorney and educate yourself before you continue.

I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this. How about you do the same before you continue.


> If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same.

Whether someone’s activity meets the elements of a destruction of evidence charge depends on context. Any competent attorney will tell you that. Wiping your phone once the encounter has begun, and especially in response to being asked to hand over the phone for inspection? Bad. Doing it before you board the plane? Less of a problem.

A border agent might still question you more intensely if you show up at the encounter with a new or previously cleaned phone, but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun.

> I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this.

What did they tell you, exactly? And can you give me their contact info?

> How about you do the same before you continue.

I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.)


>but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun.

I'm glad you have so much faith in our system.

> What did they tell you, exactly?

That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border.

> And can you give me their contact info?

No thanks, I'm alright.

>I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.)

I'm sure you are!


> That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border.

That’s true, but also not what we’re debating.

We are debating whether, on inspection, having a new-appearing phone when you first encounter CBP will give rise to reasonable suspicion that you violated the law or are inadmissible and thus should be further investigated. I asked you for specific examples where this happened to someone, and you provided an example that didn’t fit the pattern. You gave some other story about someone who destroyed evidence in the middle of an encounter.

If you don’t have an example that matches, that’s fine. But don’t then move the goalposts.


Have not heard this, whats your source? I don't see how they could determine that because "its a new phone" is hard to dispute.

best case scenario is that a higher court overturns this but not holding my breath.


What are they going to do if you’re not carrying anything illegal and you’re a citizen? You cannot be refused entry to the US as a citizen and they can’t charge you or hold you without evidence. You don’t have to tell them why your phone is wiped, just stay silent until you’re released.

People will just bring their bots over and you'll be back to square one. Bots scraping existed before LLM companies decided to go nutso on the internet.

You can try a higher level of identity verification on the new internet. It shouldn't be fully ID verified, but more like how it used to be - users on a network were anonymous to other networks, but you could email the admin of a network to track down bad behavior with their cooperation if they agreed it was bad.

You could even build this as an overlay on the current internet. DN42 is like this.


So then identity theft and fake identities will sky-rocket.

I participated in USPO’s 1800STAMPFUN as a kid and I loved it. The collectable cards and the unique stamps (looney tunes, monster movies, US Revolutionary and US Civil War heroes), all secured in my USPO stamp collecting binder. I still have it and look at it once every 5 years.

No one is upset that the AI companies are scraping the web, they’re upset how poorly implemented the scrapers, but the scraping itself is fine. Lots of people and businesses scrape the web.

There are people commenting parallel to you saying they are upset about AI companies scraping the web.

Because of the request load though. The ethical thing is separate.

Yeah I dont think they know why they think that.

Modern socializing is all about appreciating non-existent achievements by non-existent people so that everyone knows you’re cool. Or as best stated: “Life will find a way.” - Dr. Real Human Jurassic Park Character, And Not Michael Crichton

No because that reason wasn’t why they said it.

Florida is also ironically how we may get cookie banners in line and to actually opt users out as they prosecute websites there as illegal wire taps if you still put cookies on the page after or before the opt out happens.

Yes, HN is for human discussion. It is fine to flag and remove things that are not human written and cannot facilitate human discussion due to it’s false construction.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: