Wyden To Introduce Bill To Prohibit Warrantless Phone Searches At Border (onthewire.io) 193
Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A senator from Oregon who has a long track record of involvement on security and privacy issues says he plans to introduce a bill soon that would prevent border agents from forcing Americans returning to the country to unlock their phones without a warrant. Sen. Ron Wyden said in a letter to the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security that he is concerned about reports that Customs and Border Patrol agents are pressuring returning Americans into handing over their phone PINs or using their fingerprints to unlock their phones. DHS Secretary John Kelly has said that he's considering the idea of asking visitors for the login data for their various social media accounts, information that typically would require a warrant to obtain. "Circumventing the normal protection for such private information is simply unacceptable," Wyden said in the letter, sent Monday. "There are well-established procedures governing how law enforcement agencies may obtain data from social media companies and email providers. The process typically requires that the government obtain a search warrant or other court order, and then ask the service provider to turn over the user's data."
lack of foresight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They never would have anticipated the current flow of cross border traffic that might make it an issue. Not to mention the sheer storage capacity and communication ability that modern computing devices give us.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The flow of traffic doesn't "make it an issue". It isn't an issue, it's a settled point. Americans should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. They most definitely should not be held captive in a tank until they cough up their passwords.
Re:lack of foresight (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.
Note the wording: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [...]. It doesn't say "Americans" anywhere. So while I can't run for US president, if I visit, I am supposed to have thugs keep the [expletive] out of my "papers and effects". Which does include my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say "Americans" anywhere.
I think it's clear they didn't intend to include slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's clear they didn't intend to include slaves.
Right. That's why they used the word "people".
Slaves were not people, they were property.*
*Note: I completely disagree with this fucked up historical view, but this was the thoughts at the time.
As soon as you're invited to visit, I agree (naked (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think border patrol should be searching phones, we agree on that. We disagree on the reason why.
> So while I can't run for US president, if I visit
If you visit, sure, no unreasonable search. Just as I treat visitors in my home respectfully, as I'm sure you do in your home.
Consider when a couple of thuggish looking guys, strangers, show up at my door one night. Not only am I not required to invite them in, but because my wife and 2 year old daughter are inside, I have a responsibility to my wife and daughter to NOT bring potentially dangerous people in. It is my duty to take some care regarding who I allow inside.
If you want to, you can throw a nude party in your house, and say "if you want to join the party, you need to be nude". Or you can throw a sober party, and say "if you want to come to my party, don't show up drunk." I can choose whether I want to come in under those conditions or not. You haven't violated my rights by setting ground rules for your party.
When someone standing at the border requesting entry, a country has no obligation to let them in. They in fact have some degree of responsibility to exercise a degree of care about who comes in and what they bring with them. Perhaps the government has no right to search X, for any X, but they DO have the right to say "no you can't come in", or impose any conditions they feel are proper before granting entry.
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
On the other hand, it would be wrong for me to block your entry into your *own* house, saying "in order to go home, you have to get nude." That's the case of US citizens. Unlike people who wish to visit, peope have a right to enter their own home.
That said, I thinking searches the phones of visitors as a general policy is just a bad idea. I think it's inefficient, ineffective, and a bit rude.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
*You're
Re:As soon as you're invited to visit, I agree (na (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the government has no right to search X, for any X, but they DO have the right to say "no you can't come in", or impose any conditions they feel are proper before granting entry.
The problem is that citizens then become virtual prisoners in their country, because if they leave their basic rights don't have to be respected when they try to cross the border.
More over, your analogy of inviting people to your home is flawed. Countries are not private homes, they are public spaces and the government has very different responsibilities and power than a homeowner. And in any case, the border is not a special place. You would be outraged if the government wanted to search people in public areas just to check that they don't have anything illegal in their bags or on their phones.
The border is not special. All rights and protections should apply. That means making a trade-off between safety and freedom, and as ever one is worthless without the other.
That said, I thinking searches the phones of visitors as a general policy is just a bad idea. I think it's inefficient, ineffective, and a bit rude.
And a massive security risk. We all know how dumb it is to plug random USB devices into your PC. It's basically giving the world access to US border and immigration data.
Not sure if I understand what you're saying (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here:
> The problem is that citizens then become virtual prisoners in their country, because if they leave their basic rights don't have to be respected when they try to cross the border.
Are you talking about when a citizen is coming back home? I did say in my post citizens have a right to come home, in general*, and they don't (shouldn't) have to give up other rights to do so. On the other hand, citizens of Syria don't have a *right* to come to the United States
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the government has no right to search X, for any X, but they DO have the right to say "no you can't come in", or impose any conditions they feel are proper before granting entry.
False equivalency. You have the right to exclude others from your home because you own your home. Your rights of ownership are founded, ultimately, in the homesteading of previously unowned land though the labor of an original owner, plus an unbroken chain of voluntary contracts passing the rights to that land from its original owner to you. The government, by contrast, has no such legitimate claim to ownership of the entire country, and consequently does not have the right to exclude anyone from entering.
On the other hand, it would be wrong for me to block your entry into your *own* house... Unlike people who wish to visit, peope have a right to enter their own home.
A
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your "block entry to your own home" argument, but:
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
I think this clearly shows the problem with your argument. People's rights as human beings should be fully respected everywhere, without exceptions.
To verify people are not "potentially dangerous" there is a visa interview and a background check.
Maybe the interview and the background check could/should be even more strict (it is already the worst). If they consider necessary to check people's phones, social media stuff, etc, they should request
Agreed (general policy) (Score:2)
I agree. As far as I know, there is little to be gained from a policy of searching phones.
I can think of some rare circumstances in which it might be the most efficient way to resolve a doubt, perhaps with consent. Consider a young man, maybe 20 years old, is wanting to visit and bring a $50,000 of cash across the border. He says the cash is for his business buying medical lab equipment at auction in one country and bringing it to the other. Given the total circumstances, his story seems suspicious. A quick
Re: (Score:2)
So how about reciprocity? Would you hand over your phone, your phone password, your email password, your facebook password, when you want to visit Canada, Mexico, England, Russia, China, North Korea?
And even if were happy with it, it would still be a federal crime under US law. So we are basically making travel illegal, and you just hope that you do not get caught...
Re: (Score:2)
So how about reciprocity? Would you hand over your phone, your phone password, your email password, your facebook password, when you want to visit ...?
No. You simply choose not enter the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh American
If you travel to another country, you are inferring that they have the right to confiscate and examine the contents of your cellphone. You may not have porne there, but perhaps bank account and credit card info, and some other passwords.
Do unto others as you would want others to do unto you.
Re:lack of foresight (Score:5, Informative)
Could tie in with that part mentioning "We the people" found in the Declaration of Independence. Which would eliminate non-citizens from protection (possibly).
Except if you look at the full Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Or to paraphrase: We the representatives of the people of the sovereign states hereby define the owners manual for our country.
There have been many people that argued the preamble implies citizen only, but that is contrary to the the fact they enumerated citizen only restrictions elsewhere in the document, in addition, other restrictions upon the Federal Government and the rights of granted to the people via the bill of rights, seems to imply where important distinctions are made.
Re: (Score:2)
This goes to something I say here frequently; Who is a citizen of this land is in the eyes of the beholder. Because unless one has some native American blood in them, they are an illegal immigrant. You could ask Chief Ten Bears what he thinks, but we violated those treaties (three or four of 'em) and it eventually killed him. To come back to the point, unless one wishes to bend over backward and read into it things that were not put
Re: (Score:3)
By "native American", do you mean the first, second or third wave of pre-Eric-the-Red immigration?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of the wording. I stand by my statement "granted".
Witness the many unconstitutional actions not simply permitted, but praised and rewarded.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution does not "grant" rights to citizens. Those rights are inherent and are born with their human bodies.
I will agree I slipped up with grants rights; the bill of rights were an enumeration of inherit born rights. But where you slip up and fail to understand, that the constitution explicitly reserves certain rights (as those to hold office or to vote) to its citizens. At no point does it define "the people" as citizens only. Article I, section 2 and 3 and the 15th amendment (the right of the citizen to vote) _explicitly_ pointed out citizenry restrictions and a requirement of naturalized citizens to have held
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution isn't perfect. Don't try to interpret it as if it was. Better to look at the intent, rather than make technical arguments over the exact wording.
Re: (Score:3)
Make all the rationalizations that you want, SCOTUS has already decided. This is not a matter of opinion or rightness, but fact. Non-citizens do not have constitutional rights. They do have human rights and any rights granted by treaty or specific laws, but constitutional rights are only guaranteed for citizens.
Fact: the consitution, in literal and clear words, say A.
Fact: a branch of the government, because it's more convenient for them, says B.
I demand rights I have, not rights a government wants me to have. That I cannot exercise those rights at present is why I'm complaining. And I'm among people who can, if we got off our asses, fight back: while we can't fight the way the congresscritters prefer, by the Golden Rule, as we don't have the gold, we can research ways and educate people how to get your data unm
Re: (Score:2)
Make all the rationalizations that you want, SCOTUS has already decided. This is not a matter of opinion or rightness, but fact. Non-citizens do not have constitutional rights. They do have human rights and any rights granted by treaty or specific laws, but constitutional rights are only guaranteed for citizens.
Citation?
Supreme court disagree (Score:3)
Re: lack of foresight (Score:2)
Except for one small problem: the Declaration of Independence carries NO weight in constitutional law.
Re:lack of foresight (Score:5, Insightful)
They never would have anticipated the current flow of cross border traffic that might make it an issue. Not to mention the sheer storage capacity and communication ability that modern computing devices give us.
Most of them personally arrived across the border more times than the average modern American does. And they carried storage devices with their data!
And nothing in the Constitution was there as a matter of convenience due to limited storage capacity of government warehouses.
Re: lack of foresight (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but they did have private documents.
Can you imagine what would have happened if James Madison was crossing the boarder and someone said to him "Pass over all your documents, my scribe is going to take a copy of them"
There is nothing new here, it is just a document search and seizure.
Re: lack of foresight (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but they did have private documents.
But its not the same. In those days, when you travelled and crossed borders you had to more or less consciously give some attention to the documents you brought with you. Reams of paper get pretty heavy; and so it wasn't customary to have every document, photo, and piece of correspondence, you ever produced or received *on your person*.
Now you cross the border... and your phone or laptop; especially if its also linked to additional cloud storage accounts and social media etc... it literally has the potential to be a every document, photo, and piece of correspondence you have ever received; and we don't give it a 2nd thought ... we need our phones to make a few calls or receive emails and look at maps while travelling, and we don't think about just how much data we're carrying around with us until some belligerent TSA goon is demanding we hand over our phone and laptop passwords.
We're not deliberately carrying all our photos and email history and bank records and tax documents through customs because we want to transport them to another country... its just incidental to how we use the devices.
Re: (Score:1)
> But its not the same.
It is the same, private documents are private documents no matter how you store them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they did have private documents.
Can you imagine what would have happened if James Madison was crossing the boarder and someone said to him "Pass over all your documents, my scribe is going to take a copy of them"
There is nothing new here, it is just a document search and seizure.
But its not the same. In those days, when you travelled and crossed borders you had to more or less consciously give some attention to the documents you brought with you. Reams of paper get pretty heavy; and so it wasn't customary to have every document, photo, and piece of correspondence, you ever produced or received *on your person*.
... we need our phones to make a few calls or receive emails and look at maps while travelling, and we don't think about just how much data we're carrying around with us until some belligerent TSA goon is demanding we hand over our phone and laptop passwords.
Now you cross the border... and your phone or laptop; especially if its also linked to additional cloud storage accounts and social media etc... it literally has the potential to be a every document, photo, and piece of correspondence you have ever received; and we don't give it a 2nd thought
We're not deliberately carrying all our photos and email history and bank records and tax documents through customs because we want to transport them to another country... its just incidental to how we use the devices.
If James Madison was reentering the country with a suitcase of documents, it would still be egregious to demand they be turned over for copying before allowing passage. "Ah, but what if it's his entire personal library, packed in boxes. He might be smuggling contraband. Customs should be allowed to inspect!" Too true, but what invasive species, sickened animals, blood diamonds, ivory, or tiger penis might be in the ones and zeroes of James Madison VIII's phone?
Re: lack of foresight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My cellphone doesn't "run my life", why does yours?
To be fair, my mobile phone is pretty useful. Far easier than carrying around all the stuff I'd need to do the same thing in paper format.
But much like paper format, I don't keep anything on my phone that I need to keep private or confidential.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've put the onus on the wrong part of this text as well. It's crystal clear that this part of the text refers to smuggling of contraband to evade duties ONLY
This emphasis should be on:
goods, wares or for, seized, and merchandise subject to duty
My phone, or any other personal effect for that matter, is not subject to duty. Which means the statement above is by no means a 'free-for-all' for customs officers to inspect my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The CBP would be laughed out of court if it said "we were searching this phone for copyright infringement" as bring in copyrighted works is not prohibited and people have large personal collections of lots of things on their devices. You need lots more than just the presence of copyrighted works to prove copyright infringement. If the CBP already has suspicions of copyright infringements occurring then looking for particular copyright material makes sense.
It the difference between bringing in the content
Re: (Score:2)
And for everyone else...? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's disappointing how these measures always seem to be about protecting the rights of whichever host country is involved, while completely ignoring any intrusion/violation of the rights of visitors.
Re:And for everyone else...? (Score:5, Interesting)
while completely ignoring any intrusion/violation of the rights of visitors.
Speaking as someone from another country (New Zealand) who has visited the US on several occasions (mostly social) I can tell you it has certainly become an issue.
Recently I was planning to attend an event in Las Vegas (hobby related). My first thought was to the invasive border security that is already in place but I though why not and decided to go anyway.
Others decided differently, in the end the event in Las Vegas was canceled because of the invasive border protection and we all went to Australia instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone see just how bad this has become when a Kiwi would rather go to Aus than America?
Re:And for everyone else...? (Score:5, Funny)
As a New Zealander I hold with our national view that Australia is full of cunts :P .
Re: (Score:2)
There are less by virtue of Australia having a lower population than the US
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the cunt per capita ratio make it more likely that anyone you meet will be a cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the same reason they visit Las Vegas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because they keep coming in by the AirNZ planeload and never going home.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Not only do we have equal (or more) free speech in New Zealand (resident or visitor) we have far less corruption, far more financial freedom and far less regulation. We also don't have an onerous courts system.
Go look it up some time, check out the freedom indexes. The US population is positively oppressed by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Not only do we have equal (or more) free speech in New Zealand (resident or visitor) we have far less corruption, far more financial freedom and far less regulation. We also don't have an onerous courts system.
Go look it up some time, check out the freedom indexes. The US population is positively oppressed by comparison.
The ACC system all by itself makes NZ trump the USA (no pun intended). NZers are far less risk averse than Americans and many services in NZ are far cheaper because theres less risk of litigation (being sued).
Healthcare can cost less in NZ because the health care providers in North America (Canada included) have to take out very very expensive malpractice insurance because they can get sued. This, in turn, pushes up the price of health insurance and at the end of the day there are two main profit making bus
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about freedom dude.
I don't care about how big your Walmart is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well in that case China must have more freedom than everyone right? I mean, they have more people and all.
You are being silly, size of economy/population/land mass is not an indicator of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
You are coming off like an angry american that is just been told something that is contrary to what his government has been telling him for his entire life.
Ad hominem is not going to help you here, freedom is not subject to your tantrums and personal biases. It sounds as if you may need to educate yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
you originally made the claim that NZ is "more free" w/o backing it up.
No, you made the original claim, here it is for your reference:
> You as a foreigner have more rights in the US than I as an American have in your country. Go ahead and enumerate the rights that you don't have in my country that I don't have in yours. Yes, I'm subject to complete search at the border. Read your entry requirements. I also give up free speech.
I then addressed specific points on financial freedom (NZ is poor per capita) and GDP. I gave specific examples on why the NZ "freedom of speech" is actually not freedom of speech at all. I then gave size examples - GDP and population of businesses bigger than your country, and EU vs EU states - supporting the claim of why you can't even make the comparison.
the way you talk - zero substance, completely misunderstanding things adults say - you seem to be a pot smoking frat boy in his early 20s. you cannot keep the conversation on track, logical, or address any actual points. Literally, in many, many comments, you have zero actual material. I'm gonna fire one of your moron kin today just to make myself feel good.
And I have told you that there is no correlation between GDP and freedom.
So, in summary, you made the original claim and to back it up you have pratt
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. this person you think made "the original claim" - that wasn't me.
Not that I believe you but that is irrelevant, that is the original claim that we are discussing. Either discuss that or go away.
Now, stop pratting about GDP and start to back things you are saying up.
Re: (Score:2)
That is still ridiculous.
Freedom is not measured by the size of your stores.
Re: (Score:2)
These regulations will not violate my rights, because I have even stopped considering any travel through the US as a stop-ever.
If the US wants my tourist dollars, they should stop treating their customers like criminals first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been said... (Score:2)
That the traditional function of a Senator for Oregon is to drive the rest of the Senate crazy.
In this case, more power to him!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I think every state needs to be issued at least one Ron Wyden. Preferably two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a whole bunch of them running around. You gotta get people to chase them down and vote them in.
Now, how many people here really believe that this congress and president are going to pass and sign such a bill? Where were the democrats when they had control of congress and the presidency just eight short years ago? This is just more soap opera. Campaign season never ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Wyden: (Score:5, Informative)
Although it should go without saying, and certainly without legislating, once American citizenship is established at these checkpoints the full protection of the Constitution against unlawful search and seizure immediately kicks in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Senator Wyden: (Score:4, Insightful)
The constitution is a list of things the US government is ALLOWED to do. If it doesn't apply in 'no-man's land', then surely they can't do anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Would *you* risk getting detained for an indefinite period, however illegally, just because you want to assert that your constitutional rights are being violated? Of course I can appreciate the sentiment behind what you are saying, but people are bending over and taking this kind of crap at the borders not because they particularly *want* any appearance of increased security, but because they just want to fucking go home, and cooperating fully with the border agents, even the ones who might abuse their position, and even if your rights are being violated, is generally expected to be the most expedient path to that end.
That's precisely the fucking problem. People are no longer willing to be even inconvenienced to stand up for their civil rights, earned by the very blood of those who came before them.
Re: (Score:2)
Being detained for an indefinite period is more than a mere "inconvenience".
That said, as I would do with any law enforcement encounter, I would "comply" and then file suit when I was safely at home.
Re:Senator Wyden: (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always found the whole "no mans land" thing amusing in a twisted way since the customs agents claim to have legal authority to ignore the Constitution and yet it is the Constitution that grants them any authority in the first place.
If the Constitution/Bill of Rights does not apply and they have no authority to do anything. But If they claim that they have any authority then the Constitutional/Bill of Rights protections apply. And as another poster pointed out the Constitution doesn't have a clause "These Rights only apply to American Citizens".
Re: (Score:2)
Send him snail mail or a phone call.
Re: (Score:3)
Send him snail mail or a phone call.
Come on now. He's a member of the Senate, the most exclusive club in the country. You don't think he reads Slashdot?
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution's provisions about search and seizure make no reference to citizenship. If it applies to an American citizen, it applies equally to a Russian or Iranian citizen in the same place and the same circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Very few US laws are based on citizenship, most laws including constitutional rights apply to everybody who is here.
The colloquial subject language simply focuses incorrectly on citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
Notable exception: Tax laws.
Actually, they're based on both - residency OR US citizensip makes you liable to pay income taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
You have that sideways and upside down.
The 4th Amendment says:
So actually your business isn't automatically even protected by that. If they do issue a warrant to search a commerc
has it come to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I remembered that in the area of national security and border / immigration enforcement, the executive branch has pushed their own discretion so far that Congress / courts really do have to put protections like this into law for it to be heeded. Basically they have been cut out of the loop of immigration and border enforcement as just bystanders, because the executive branch has all the guns, and it only comes to Congress/courts' attention when someone makes it in (and isn't kicked out immediately) and survives long enough to file a habeus petition.
The real check and balance needed would be for border agents and officials who abuse their authority to be penalized for it.
Re:has it come to this (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you prove that a border agent or office has abused their authority? I have personally seen CBP agents going through a person's phone and their private photos. They were sitting in the booth going through them while I waited but they did not realize that I can see what they are doing through the reflection in the glass on the booth.
They have also attempted to open my devices when I am stopped for a random check. I get the alerts in my e-mails and on my watch.
The point is with no oversight or prerequisites to make border guards follow, with required outcome, then abuse will be rampant. The guards see a good looking male or female and force them to unlock the phone just to gain access to their most private moments. These are done behind closed doors and can be copied without permission and are nothing more than abuse of power.
Re: (Score:2)
To focus on a small part of what you said: if you store it on your phone, it's not one of your private moments. Even if the government wasn't the one looking at your data, it's stored and monetized by, e.g. Google.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is.. with groups like google, there are definite terms of service (ie: limitations on what they CAN use and what they CAN do with the data) (and they have a vested interest in keeping the data secure and anonymized because breaches engenders distrust which hurts the profits), and their use of your data can't toss you in jail, or potentially harm your life (assuming you are not doing some clearly illegal). Vs. a CBP officer has the ability to do with your data as they wish without any clear t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disputing government oversight is required. I'm saying I have no reason to trust Google. After all, the US Constitution is more enforceable than Terms of Service, and it is also a limit on what info they can use (e.g. they cannot use your communications with your lawyer or priest) and what they can do to collect the data). Google may value trust now, but it only takes one time when they calculate it's worth the risk x chance of being caught to overstep. And then claim they had to to maximize sha
Re: (Score:2)
You guys should get some data protection regulation with teeth. You're missing out.
Getting a warrent (Score:2)
However, I give it about 5 seconds before some DHS stooge argues that entering the country counts as probable cause and the same judge that allowed Stop and Frisk [wikipedia.org] falls for the same equally bullshit reasoning.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a phenomenal idea, specifically referring to the password, haha.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot stomach such a policy, but I'll turn over my recently wiped phone and my password "4thamendment" to them.
When I leave the airport, I'll have Google Play reload everything and plug-in my uSD card, and I'll be good to go.
Yes, it's an inconvenience, but I protect my privacy and the US Security Theater can continue it's performances.
When they discover that your phone 'has been wiped for the border' you can expect them to become much more interested in you. Because 'obviously you are hiding something'.
Bad for the economy (Score:5, Insightful)
This shit can't be good for the US economy. Tourism and airlines will be most affected.
I live in NZ but I'm from the UK. I used to live in SF Bay and have friends there. So when flying home to the UK for a visit I would fly via SFO.
Not anymore. Even flying through the US without going into the country is like an Orwellian nightmare.
So I fly Emirates via Dubai. It's a damn shame as used to think of California as a 2nd home and loved visiting there.
I can't be alone in my boycotting.
The saddest thing is that modern America starting to look more and more like the old USSR.
Re:Bad for the economy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny (in a not so 'haha' way) that the dictatorship that is the UAE (sorry 'monarchy'), is actually less intrusive to travel through than the shining beacon of democracy that the US is supposed to be...
The UAE has to actually compete. The US does not have to or so they believe.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Canadian who I used to travel to the USA for vacations/tourism at least once a year for the past 10 years.
But I turned down a trip with friends to Pittsburgh last weekend, and plan on avoiding all future travel to the USA until I know my rights will be respected.
If I'm being honest, I don't really anticipate that happening, so i doubt I'll be returning to USA ever again.
I'll just take my vacations in Canada or the Caribbean instead.
I'm boycotting, and I'm white..... I imagine there are many non-white tourists who are rethinking their plans too.
Can you get from Canada to the Caribbean without traversing US airspace?
International travel works both ways (Score:2)
If you demand people hand over passwords, expect to have yours demanded of you when you cross the border headed somewhere else.
This is how most biometric collection works - but, fair is fair.
Sigh.
Re:Great. Why not six years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now it is. They control all three branches of government and could stop warrantless searches tomorrow if they so decided.
And Trump is the very last person who will relinquish the kind of power that warrantless searches give him.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's simply a deflection and avoiding the subject. Why didn't the Democrats take action when *they* had all 3 branches of government with Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' in play that made the minority (R)'s unable to block/obstruct as with the ACA/Obamacare?
Could it be that the problem is one of a too-powerful government altogether,
Re: (Score:2)
Why does any despot want any power? It gives him advantage.
Trump doesn't have a great record in the courts. Having to ask a judge for a warrant to snoop on someone is not in his nature.
Re: (Score:2)
He was able to take 3 vacations and golf six times in a month, and nobody thought that was possible. Considering passing and signing legislation is their one fucking job, you'd think they'd be able to fit a single bill outlawing warrantless wiretaps into their busy schedule. But wait, Congress is on recess, meeting with their "constituents" (donors).
Re: (Score:2)
e.g. level of suspicion for canal drug smuggling.
The issue of any particular vehicle been covered by an administrative warrant so roving patrols could counter border smuggling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Recall Congress gave a lot of new power to search for terrorists over the past years. The need to uncover terrorist communications was also considered.
No US court or gov is going to allow sanctuary to terrorist material and has given t
Re: (Score:1)
Bills that are expected to pass have bipartisan support. Bills that are just posturing are introduced by the minority party and never get out of committee.
Re: As a Canadian... (Score:2)
(Stupid touch screen)
All four of us are planning to spend 10 days in Nevada.
I'm coming with real money to spend on frivilous crap because I can.
Why make it difficult?
I'm white, of British and Scottish descent, with no religious affiliation. I dont really expect too many problems, but the idea that it might makes me reconsider this trip.
Re: (Score:2)
(Stupid touch screen)
All four of us are planning to spend 10 days in Nevada.
I'm coming with real money to spend on frivilous crap because I can.
Why make it difficult?
I'm white, of British and Scottish descent, with no religious affiliation. I dont really expect too many problems, but the idea that it might makes me reconsider this trip.
Don't take cash. The cops will steal it.
Re: As a Canadian... (Score:2)
Not going to gamble.
There is a specific event we are going to. Nothing really like it here in Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Canadian who is planning a trip to thr US this August, I really want to just come to your country hassle free, so I can spend my money.
My whole family (4 of us) are plank
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
Re: (Score:2)
America: Have your phone's contents read and your children groped while you have to "step back from the line, Sir"
Canada: Local people volunteer to go to the airport with the sole intention to welcome travellers into the country.
Quite the contrast...