Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
43% Positive
Analyzed from 1316 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#border#search#government#https#phone#amendment#right#citizens#cbp#constitution
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 1316 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (31 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
My advice, take a burner phone to the airport (and elsewhere?), and since devices are subject to warrantless search anywhere and everywhere, via exceptions to the fourth amendment [1] (the constitution seems designed to be bent or outright ignored), keep your data at home and encrypted. The "cloud" is a government data supermarket.
For example.
> While the Fourth Amendment is the foundation, federal and state laws can add layers of complexity. For example, the Patriot Act expanded the government's ability to conduct surveillance and searches, particularly in national security cases, sometimes with a lower burden of proof than traditional criminal investigations.
MUCH lower.
[0] https://ssd.eff.org/
[1] https://uslawexplained.com/warrantless_search
If I need a cell phone, laptop, etc., then I will buy or rent something cheap at the destination.
I got into the habit while traveling back and forth the mainland China as it was our corporate policy (and we never brought any electronics back, either).
Then when I tried to log in to my Gmail account at my destination, it flagged it as a suspicious login attempt and wouldn't let me in without entering a code they texted to my American phone number, which meant I was locked out of my email for the duration of the trip.
Plus travel day realities often require your phone and accounts - plane tickets, Uber/Lyft, hotel reservations or updates from Airbnb with check-in instructions, door codes, etc.
It's a tremendous challenge and hassle for any regular person. We really just need to push back on the government overreach. It's tragic that half of the Trump voters proclaim to be "small government" and "Don't tread on me" but then tolerate things like this. There's certainly a bipartisan group of people opposed that are large enough to effect change if we work together.
Not that it really matters, with the current Supreme Court being what it is, but still...
It's one of those weird things in the US constitution which allow for congress to create new federal courts which don't ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the regular federal courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping
Not great, but I think that’s what’s being specifically adjudicated here.
They still cannot deny an US citizen entry if you decline to unlock your phone, though they may confiscate your device. I don’t know if they would then be allowed to do deeper forensics without a warrant.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
This effectively means border patrol can do whatever they want in areas that do not involve a border crossing and involve citizens just living their normal lives
Be afraid...
In other words... whom (or what) was perceived to have pissed in the CBP officer's Wheaties this morning? We'll never know what grudges he holds to make his decision.
There dosent appear to be any import/export controls on the current internet is there?
If they say import export control gives them the right to search citizens maybe they should be aware of this giant gapping hole that the internet created 30+ years ago?
>“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_o...
> Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
from https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
> Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
“Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,”
I think this is just an extension of a general we, as government officials protecting American freedoms, can do what we want and will justify it later if we have to policy.
It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering).
People did not think this policy through fully. =3
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/206/
> (c) Although a lawfully resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to due process, the alien in this case is an entrant alien or "assimilated to that status" for constitutional purposes.
And another gem from the same case that is recently all the more relevant:
> Nothing in the Constitution requires admission or sufferance of aliens hostile to our scheme of government.
Meaning they can seize all your stuff and deport you if you criticize the government. Also, immigration lawyers are part of the Executive branch.