In recent weeks, airport Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents have drawn public outcry for denying travelers US entry based on searches of their phones. A doctor on an H-1B visa was deported to Lebanon after CBP found “sympathetic photos and videos” of Hezbollah leaders. A French scientist was turned away after a device search unearthed messages criticizing the Trump administration’s cuts to research programs, which officers said “conveyed hatred of Trump” and “could be qualified as terrorism.” As the administration ratchets up pressure to turn away even legal immigrants, its justifications are becoming thinner and thinner — but travelers can still benefit from knowing what are supposed to be their legal rights.
Technology
Is it safe to travel with your phone right now?
Your ability to decline a search depends on your immigration status — and, in some cases, on where and how you’re entering the country. Courts across the country have issued different rulings on device searches at ports of entry. But no matter your situation, there are precautions you can take to safeguard your digital privacy.
CBP device searches have historically been relatively rare. During the 2024 fiscal year, less than 0.01 percent of arriving international travelers had their phones, computers, or other electronic devices searched by CBP, according to the agency. That year, CBP officers conducted 47,047 device searches. But even before this recent wave of incidents, inspections were on the rise: eight years earlier, during the 2016 fiscal year, CBP searched only 19,051 devices.
The “border search” exception
The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that warrantless searches of people’s cell phones violated the Fourth Amendment. But there’s one exception to that rule: searches that happen at the border. The courts have held that border searches “are reasonable simply because they occur at the border,” meaning in most cases, CBP and Border Patrol don’t need a warrant to look through travelers’ belongings — including their phones. That exception applies far beyond the US’s literal borders, since airports are considered border zones, too.
“Traditionally, the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment allowed customs officers to search things like luggage. The idea was whatever you’re taking with you is pertinent to your travel,” Saira Hussain, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Verge. The point was to look for people or things that were inadmissible into the country.
“It can show every facet of your life.”
These days, most travelers are carrying a lot more in their pockets — not only information stored on a phone’s hardware, but anything that’s accessible on it with a data connection. “When you look at devices, the data that you carry with you isn’t just pertinent to your travel. This data can precede your travel by over a decade because of how much information is stored on the cloud,” Hussain said. “It can show every facet of your life. It can show your financial history, your medical history, your communications with your doctor and your attorney. It can reveal so much information that is not analogous at all to the notion of a customs officer looking through your luggage.” Privacy advocates have warned of this issue for years, but in an environment where officers are seeking any pretext to turn someone away, it’s an even bigger problem.
If you’re a US citizen, “you have the right to say no” to a search, “and they are not allowed to bar you from the country,” Hussain said. But if you refuse, CBP can still take your phone, laptop, or other devices and hold onto them.
Permanent residents can similarly refuse a search, but with complicating factors. If someone with a green card leaves the US for more than 180 days, they’re screened for “inadmissibility” — reasons they may be barred from entry — upon returning to the country. Green card holders who have certain offenses on their record may also be deemed inadmissible. That appears to have been the case with Fabian Schmidt, a permanent resident whose family said he was “violently interrogated” by CBP agents at Boston Logan Airport after returning from a trip to Europe. Because of these factors, permanent residents may not feel comfortable refusing a search, even if doing so wouldn’t bar them from entering the country.
Visa holders have fewer rights at ports of entry, and refusing a search could lead to them being denied entry to the country.
There are two types of device searches CBP officers can conduct: basic and forensic, or advanced. “There’s a distinction that the government draws between searching your phone and just looking at whatever is on it, versus connecting your phone to external equipment to search it using advanced algorithms or to copy the contents of your phone,” Hussain said.
The government maintains that it doesn’t need a warrant to conduct “basic” searches of the contents of a person’s phone. During these searches, Hussain explained, agents are supposed to put your phone on airplane mode and can only look at what is accessible offline — but that can still be a lot of information, including any cloud data that’s currently synced.
“While forensic inspections are powerful, a lot of mischief can happen through the physical, ‘thumbing-through’ inspections that law enforcement can engage in,” Tom McBrien, counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, also told The Verge.
“A lot of mischief can happen through the physical, ‘thumbing-through’ inspections that law enforcement can engage in”
For the most part, courts have avoided the question of whether CBP can conduct warrantless basic searches of a person’s phone or laptop, effectively allowing the agency to do so. But there’s one geographic exception to this rule. Last year, a federal judge in New York’s Eastern District ruled that CBP can’t conduct any warrantless searches of travelers’ devices. That ruling doesn’t apply anywhere else in the country, but the district includes John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens — the sixth-busiest airport in the US. That ruling applies to both basic and forensic inspections.
Elsewhere in the country, judges have imposed some limitations on advanced searches. Warrantless forensic searches are allowed in some places and prohibited in others, depending on how different federal circuit courts rule. The Supreme Court could clear this up with a ruling that applies nationwide, but it’s avoided the question for years.
“Your rights will be different depending on whether you’re on a flight landing in Boston Logan in the First Circuit or Reagan/Dulles in the Fourth Circuit,” McBrien said. “Similarly, your rights would be different if you’re crossing the border in Arizona (Ninth Circuit) or New Mexico (Tenth Circuit). This does not make a lot of sense, but the Supreme Court has consistently declined to address these disparities by consistently denying petitions for certiorari in cases that have teed the question up.”
Some courts have been more permissive than others. The Ninth Circuit — which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington — prohibits warrantless forensic searches unless officers are looking for “digital contraband,” such as child sexual abuse material. The Fourth Circuit — covering Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia — prohibits warrantless forensic searches unless officers are looking for information related to ongoing border violations, such as human smuggling or drug trafficking.
In 2023, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York ruled that the border search exception doesn’t extend to forensic searches, for which warrants are needed. (Oddly, the case in question involved a phone search at Newark Liberty Airport in New Jersey, a state that is in a different federal circuit from New York.) These searches, judge Jed Rakoff wrote, “extend the Government’s reach far beyond the person and luggage of the border-crosser — as if the fact of a border crossing somehow entitled the Government to search that traveler’s home, car, and office.”
Malik’s phone was taken even though he’s enrolled in Global Entry
Not all judges agree. In 2021, Adam Malik, an immigration lawyer, sued CBP after agents at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport seized his phone and searched the contents without a warrant. According to the lawsuit, Malik’s phone was taken even though he’s enrolled in Global Entry, CBP’s trusted traveler program. Because the agents couldn’t bypass Malik’s password, they sent the phone to a forensics lab, which extracted all the phone’s data.
A federal court ruled in favor of DHS, saying the warrantless search hadn’t violated Malik’s rights. When Malik appealed to the Fifth Circuit — which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — the judges held that the search didn’t require a warrant. But the court also expressed “no view on how the border-search exemption may develop or be clarified in future cases.”
In other words, the constitutionality of these searches is still an open question — and CBP won’t stop conducting them until and unless it’s expressly forbidden from doing so.
These distinctions matter because they determine a person’s basis for challenging device inspections in court. But given the Trump administration’s recent track record of ignoring the law and flouting judicial orders, limiting what can be found on your phone is a safer bet than suing the government over an unlawful search after the fact.
Instead of trying to game out what rights you have depending on your immigration status and what airport you’re flying into (or what land border you’re crossing), the best way to keep your devices safe from CBP is to limit what’s on them.
“We always encourage data minimization when crossing the border; you want to travel with the least amount of data possible,” Hussain said.
Before traveling, you should encrypt your devices and make sure you’re using secure passwords. Travelers should disable biometric logins like Face ID, since some courts have ruled that police can’t compel you to tell them your password but they can use biometrics to unlock your phone.
Travelers should disable biometric logins like Face ID
The EFF recommends that travelers limit what can be found during basic phone or laptop searches by uploading their data onto the cloud and deleting it off their device — and ensuring that it’s fully been removed, since agents can also look through your phone’s “recently deleted” files during basic searches. Customs agents are supposed to keep your phone on airplane mode while they conduct a basic search, but that still lets them see any cached emails, text messages, and other communications. The best way to safeguard this information is to back it up onto the cloud and then wipe your phone or laptop entirely.
Backing up sensitive or personal data doesn’t just prevent others from accessing your device; it also ensures you don’t lose that data if CBP seizes your phone or computer. McBrien also suggests that people turn their phones off when they’re crossing the border or at the airport. “Turning the phone off means that when you turn it back on, it requires a passcode whether or not you use FaceID or other biometric measures,” McBrien said.
In a better legal environment, these precautions wouldn’t be the only meaningful shield between you and a border search. “Without strong constitutional and statutory protections, personal choices about how to configure one’s device and apps can only mitigate — not eliminate — the dangers that border device searches pose to their privacy and speech rights,” McBrien said. For now, if CBP really wants to look through your phone, they’ll likely find a way. But you can still protect yourself as much as possible.
Amazon’s Prime Day is now in its second day, and whether you’re looking for a new pair of wireless earbuds or a smartwatch, there’s a good chance you’ll find a discount. The Apple Watch Series 11 has already dropped to a new low price, while the AirPods Pro 3 are discounted to $179. With Tim Cook warning that price hikes are coming, now may be the moment if you’ve been eyeing one of the company’s devices.
Below are the best Apple deals currently available. Some are exclusive to Prime Day, while others are simply great discounts we think are worth highlighting. We’ll continue updating this guide throughout Prime Day, highlighting more deals as they become available.
Earbud and headphone deals
Update, June 24th: Adjusted prices and availability, and added deals for Apple’s MagSafe Charger as well as the Apple Magic Keyboard.
A critique published in Nature Wednesday calls the basic technology behind Microsoft’s “breakthrough” quantum computing chip the Majorana 1 into question. Microsoft unveiled the chip in February 2025 and said it featured a brand-new technology known as a topological qubit. Topological qubits, they said, would be the “building blocks” for their future quantum computer. Microsoft announced the next generation chip Majorana 2 at Build earlier this month.
But in a peer-reviewed article, Henry Legg, a physicist at the University of St Andrews, reanalyzed Microsoft’s data on their device and argued that the company’s researchers did not conclusively demonstrate a working topological qubit in the first place.
Theory predicts that the electrons in this wire behave in a collective pattern known as a Majorana particle, for which the chip is named.
Proponents of quantum computing predict that the technology’s computational abilities will advance new medicine discovery, encryption, and machine learning. Companies like Google and IBM have already demonstrated more advanced machines than Majorana 1 or 2, although presently, no one has conclusively gotten any quantum computer to perform anything useful. But Microsoft claimed that Majorana 1, and subsequently Majorana 2, paved their path toward a practical quantum computer.
Microsoft’s design, unique among quantum computing companies, involves a tiny wire, thinner than a human hair, made of the semiconductor indium arsenide stuck to a superconductor. Theory predicts that the electrons in this wire behave in a collective pattern known as a Majorana particle, for which the chip is named. Microsoft wants to encode information in the properties of the Majorana particle. (A topological qubit is to a Majorana particle as a transistor is to silicon.)
Proponents of the Majorana particle think it is promising qubit material because theory predicts that when formed into topological qubits, the Majorana should compute with fewer errors than competing materials, such as superconducting circuits pursued by IBM. This suggests that ultimately, fewer topological qubits are needed to scale up to a useful quantum computer.
That is, if Microsoft has actually made a Majorana particle. “They haven’t convincingly shown that they have Majoranas,” Legg told The Verge. “You can’t make a qubit if you don’t have the Majoranas.”
In Legg’s critique, he writes that what Microsoft claims as a signature of the Majorana particle could actually be from the formation of quantum dots, which are electron-containing structures, in the device. Quantum dots would not be useful for building the quantum computer. He also writes that Microsoft cherry-picked their data.
“You can’t make a qubit if you don’t have the Majoranas.”
Microsoft’s team published a rebuttal in Nature disputing Legg’s interpretation of their data. Legg’s critique “does not constitute a substantial scientific challenge to our findings,” the Microsoft team wrote. Legg has not “proposed an alternative model that fits all of our data,” Chetan Nayak, a physicist leading Microsoft’s quantum team, told The Verge.
Legg first posted his critique on the online physics repository arXiv on February 26, 2025, within a week of Microsoft’s Majorana 1 announcement. It took a year for Nature to conduct a peer review and publish his article.
Meanwhile, on June 2, Microsoft announced a new chip, the Majorana 2, featuring what they claimed was the next generation of their topological qubits. The company says they can build a “scalable quantum computer” by 2029. “We 100% stand behind our results,” Nayak told The Verge. “We stand by our roadmap. We stand behind our long-standing commitment to scientific rigor and dialogue.”
Legg says the company’s characterization of Majorana 2, which Microsoft wrote in a non-peer reviewed manuscript, suffers from similar problems he pointed out a year ago. “Nothing in this [manuscript] resolves the fundamental issues that so many scientists have with this company’s previous claims,” Legg told The Verge.
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Buying a phone without tying it directly to your identity could get much harder. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering tougher “know your customer” rules for voice providers.
The proposal would push phone companies to collect and keep more personal information before giving many new or renewing customers access to service. That could include your name, physical address, government-issued identification number and an alternate phone number.
The FCC says the goal is to make life harder for scammers, robocallers and criminals who abuse phone networks. That sounds reasonable at first. Nobody wants more fake bank calls, Medicare scam texts or urgent messages from crooks pretending to be family members. Yet this proposal raises a much bigger question. How much personal privacy should we give up to fight scam calls?
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
GOOGLE SEARCH LED TO A COSTLY SCAM CALL
The FCC is considering tougher phone identity checks that could require more personal information before service begins. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
What the FCC phone ID proposal would require
The FCC phone ID proposal focuses on identity checks for originating voice providers. Those are the companies that allow calls to enter the phone network. Right now, the FCC already expects providers to take steps to know their customers and stop illegal calls. The new proposal would make those duties more specific. The FCC is asking whether providers should be required to obtain and retain certain customer information before granting service. At a minimum, that could include:
- Name
- Physical address
- Government-issued identification number
- Alternate telephone number
The FCC is also asking how these rules should apply to “new and renewing” customers. That phrase is important. A narrow version could focus on people opening new accounts. A broader version could reach people who switch plans or renew service with a current provider. For high-volume customers, including some business and foreign customers, the FCC is also asking whether providers should collect more information. That could include the intended use of the service and the IP address used to place calls, when applicable.
The FCC is also asking whether providers should retain KYC records for four years after the customer relationship ends, tied to the statute of limitations for certain illegal calling violations.
Why the FCC wants stronger phone identity checks
The FCC says scammers hide behind phone calls and texts to rip people off, then disappear before anyone can track them down. Anyone with a phone knows this problem has gotten out of hand. Most of us now look at an unknown number and assume trouble before we even answer.
The agency believes tougher identity checks could make it harder for bad actors to get onto phone networks in the first place. It also says better customer records could help investigators connect the dots after a scam call or text causes harm.
Here is where the proposal gets bigger. The FCC also asks whether stronger records could help law enforcement investigate crimes that go beyond scam calls, including national security threats and abuse in text messaging networks. So while robocalls are the headline, this proposal reaches much further. It could move phone service closer to an identity-check model that goes well beyond robocalls.
Why burner phones could become harder to buy
The FCC proposal does not specifically say it will ban burner phones. Still, the practical impact could be significant. A burner phone usually refers to a prepaid phone or phone line with no clear identity link at the point of purchase. TV shows often connect burner phones with criminals. Real life is more complicated.
People use prepaid or private phone lines for plenty of lawful reasons. A domestic abuse survivor may need a safe phone that an abuser cannot easily trace through shared accounts. A journalist may need to protect a source. A whistleblower may need to call without exposing a personal number. Someone without a stable address may rely on prepaid service because it is easier to obtain.
If phone companies must collect a government ID number and physical address before service begins, anonymous or lightly identified prepaid service could become far harder to access. That is why privacy advocates see this as more than a robocall rule. They see it as a potential shift in how Americans get basic phone service.
HOW SCAMMERS BUILD A PROFILE ON YOU USING DATA BROKERS
Prepaid phones could face closer scrutiny if the FCC moves ahead with stricter “know your customer” rules. (Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The FCC proposal could affect prepaid phone plans
Prepaid phones are a big part of this story. Some people use them to save money. Others use them because they want more control over what they spend or because a traditional phone plan creates hurdles they would rather avoid.
The FCC is now asking whether prepaid and postpaid customers should face different identity checks. That question is important because prepaid service has long been one of the easiest ways to get a working phone without a lengthy signup process.
A strict final rule could make prepaid service feel a lot more like opening a bank account. For some people, that may only mean another form to fill out. For others, especially someone trying to stay safe or keep a phone line private, it could be a much bigger deal.
The privacy risk behind a phone ID database
The most obvious concern is privacy. The quieter concern is cybersecurity. Phone companies already hold sensitive customer information. Adding government ID numbers, physical addresses and alternate phone numbers would make those records even more valuable to hackers.
If a telecom database gets breached, criminals may use stolen customer data for phishing, identity theft, SIM-swap attacks or stalking. A rule meant to stop scammers could create a richer target for scammers to steal. That to me is scary.
The FCC does ask how providers should protect customer information and how long records should be retained. Those are important questions. Still, better security rules would need real teeth. Sensitive data becomes a liability the moment it gets collected.
What “physical address” could mean for phone customers
The FCC is also asking whether P.O. boxes, shared office locations and similar addresses should count as a customer’s physical address. That detail could create real problems.
Some people do not have a traditional home address. Others may avoid sharing one because of safety concerns. A domestic abuse survivor may use a mailing address that keeps a home location private. A small business owner may use a shared office or mail service. If the final rule limits what counts as a valid address, some people could face a harder path to phone service. That may sound like a compliance detail. For someone trying to stay safe, it could matter a lot.
TOP 10 ROBOCALL HOT SPOTS IN AMERICA
Privacy advocates warn that stronger identity checks could make private phone access harder for people with legitimate safety concerns. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
What happens next with the FCC phone ID proposal
The FCC is taking public comments on the proposal through June 25, 2026. Reply comments are due July 27, 2026. After that, the agency can review feedback from phone companies, law enforcement, privacy groups, consumer advocates and the public.
The final rule could change. The FCC could narrow the requirements, add privacy safeguards, create exceptions or revise major parts of the proposal. For now, this is one to watch closely.
We reached out to the FCC for comment, but did not hear back before our deadline.
How to reduce scam calls and texts now
You do not need to wait for a new FCC rule to protect yourself.
1) Let unknown calls go to voicemail
Do not feel pressured to answer every unknown number. A real caller can leave a message. A scammer wants you on the line fast, before you have a chance to slow down and think.
2) Turn on phone spam protections
On iPhone, go to Settings, tap Apps, scroll down and tap Phone, then go to the unknown caller settings. Choose Silence to send calls from unsaved numbers to voicemail, or choose Ask Reason for Calling if you want unsaved callers to provide more information before your iPhone rings. You can also look under Call Filtering and toggle on Unknown Callers and Spam.
On many Samsung phones, open the Phone app, tap the three dots, tap Settings, tap Caller ID and spam protection and turn it on. Then, scroll down and make sure Block all spam and scam calls is toggled on. Settings may vary depending on your phone model.
3) Avoid links in unexpected texts
Go directly to the company’s app or website instead. That habit can help stop fake toll texts, bank scams and delivery alerts.
4) Reduce the personal info scammers can use against you
Scammers often sound convincing because they already know something about you. That information can come from people-search sites, data brokers, old breaches or public records. Consider using a data removal service to reduce how much of your personal information is floating around online. Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com
5) Block and report suspicious messages
Do not just delete scam texts. On iPhone, open Messages. If you have not opened the message, swipe left on it, tap the Delete button, then tap Delete and Report Spam. If you have already opened it, tap Report Spam at the bottom of the message, then tap Delete and Report Spam. To block the sender, open the conversation, tap the sender’s icon at the top, tap Info, scroll down and tap Block Contact. Apple says reporting spam does not block the sender. Settings and carrier support may vary.
On many Samsung Galaxy phones using Google Messages, open the message, tap the three dots and choose Block and report spam, if requested confirm your decision by tapping Yes. If you use Samsung Messages, touch and hold the conversation, tap More, then tap Block. Settings may vary depending on your phone model and messaging app.
6) Use antivirus software and a password manager
Strong antivirus software can help block phishing links and malicious websites before they cause damage. A password manager can also help you avoid reusing passwords if a scammer tricks you into entering login details on a fake page. Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at Cyberguy.com
7) Turn on account alerts
Turn on bank, credit card and phone carrier alerts so you know quickly if someone tries to make a charge, move money or change your account. Fast alerts can help you stop damage before it spreads.
Watch the CyberGuy Live replay: Lock Down Your Phone in 30 Minutes
Your phone holds your email, passwords, photos, banking apps and personal data. In this free CyberGuy Live replay, Kurt the CyberGuy walks you step by step through simple phone security fixes you can do at your own pace. You’ll learn how to improve your privacy settings, spot the latest phone scams, use trusted security tools and walk away with a simple checklist to stay protected. Watch the replay and get our checklist here: CyberGuyLive.com
Kurt’s key takeaways
The FCC wants to stop scammers before they ever get onto the phone network. I get that. Scam calls and texts are out of control, and they have cost too many people real money. At the same time, the way the FCC is looking at this raises a real privacy concern. Asking phone companies to collect a government ID number, physical address and alternate phone number could change what it takes to get basic phone service in America. The FCC believes stronger customer records could help investigators track scammers after illegal calls happen. The question is whether scammers would still find ways around the rules while people with legitimate privacy needs face new hurdles. A domestic abuse survivor, journalist, whistleblower or person without a stable address may have a much harder time getting a private phone line. That is why any scam-fighting plan needs strong privacy safeguards. Before asking phone customers to hand over more personal information, the FCC should show how this data would reduce scams and how it would be protected.
Would you give your phone carrier a government ID number and physical address if it meant fewer scam calls, or does that go too far? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.Cyberguy.com
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
-
Los Angeles, Ca26 minutes agoBoyle Heights warehouse cleanup begins as crews face 85 million pounds of spoiled food
-
Detroit, MI46 minutes agoWould Detroit Lions Salary Cap Be Wrecked If Terrion Arnold Gets Cut?
-
San Francisco, CA56 minutes agoTwo more Presidio Heights homes reach $10M range as luxury supply dwindles
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoOne Dallas Cowboys Contract That Will Age Poorly in 2026
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoLive updates: Today’s South Florida News
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoA federal judge in Boston has blocked parts of Trump’s order to limit voting by mail
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoDenver Transplant Games sets Guinness World Record for most living donors, recipients in one place at one time
-
Seattle, WA1 hour ago17-year-old boy shot in High Point, multiple suspects seen running from crashed car
