Border Agents Can Search Phones Freely Under New Circuit Court Ruling (theverge.com) 209
A U.S. appeals court has ruled that Customs and Border Protection agents can conduct in-depth searches of phones and laptops, overturning an earlier legal victory for civil liberties groups. The Verge reports: First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch declared that both basic and "advanced" searches, which include reviewing and copying data without a warrant, fall within "permissible constitutional grounds" at the American border. Lynch ruled against a group of US citizens and residents objecting to invasive searches of their electronic devices. The group includes Sidd Bikkannavar, a NASA scientist who was detained and pressured to unlock a secure government-issued phone. Most of the incidents date to 2017, when then-President Donald Trump pushed for tighter border security alongside travel bans and other restrictions. But some took place earlier, reflecting long-standing concerns among groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, which backed this lawsuit.
A district court declared that CBP searches violated the Fourth Amendment by not requiring "reasonable suspicion" that the devices contained contraband. Lynch disagreed. "Electronic device searches do not fit neatly into other categories of property searches, but the bottom line is that basic border searches of electronic devices do not involve an intrusive search of a person," she wrote. That lowers the bar for conducting them at the border, where the government's interest in security is "at its zenith." "Warrantless and suspicionless electronic device searches can give border officers unfettered access to vast amounts of private information about our lives," said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "We are disappointed with the ruling and evaluating all options to ensure we don't lose our privacy rights when we travel."
A district court declared that CBP searches violated the Fourth Amendment by not requiring "reasonable suspicion" that the devices contained contraband. Lynch disagreed. "Electronic device searches do not fit neatly into other categories of property searches, but the bottom line is that basic border searches of electronic devices do not involve an intrusive search of a person," she wrote. That lowers the bar for conducting them at the border, where the government's interest in security is "at its zenith." "Warrantless and suspicionless electronic device searches can give border officers unfettered access to vast amounts of private information about our lives," said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "We are disappointed with the ruling and evaluating all options to ensure we don't lose our privacy rights when we travel."
Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
This policy has been policy since at least Obama and before.
Biden could stop this easily. Why doesn't he?
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
because JFK taught us many years ago that the president is the president, but not the person in charge.
try and change things and you'll soon find out.
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
Especially when it comes to things like extraterrestr{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden could stop this easily. Why doesn't he?
Because that's Congress' job.
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
> Because that's Congress' job.
No it's not. There are no exceptions to the 4th Amendment in the Constitution so statutes can't limit or expand it. It is a limitation on government power, not a grant of rights.
Uncle Joe tells his Executive Branch employees "cut that shit out" and it's done. That's what Executive Orders exist for.
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:2)
Until then, when I fly internationally, I will just back up my devices and wipe them before landing. They can search all they want. If they ask questions, they can search my backup when they get a warrant. Cause fuck them. I will restore it wh
Re: Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their biggest failure of SCOTUS was not stopping Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the Executive branch.
The DHS should only be permitted to recommend regulations, policies and rules. Congress(aka our elected officials) should have to vote on anything that has the force of law before it can be enacted.
Re: Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you're misunderstanding the Dred Scott decision. It was definitely bad. Even worse than you're portraying it actually. But it goes deeper than just ruling in support of slavery. It ruled that African Americans could not be citizens and that they therefore did not have constitutional rights. That is terrible both in that it discriminates against all African Americans, not just enslaved ones and that it also says that non-citizens don't have constitutional rights. That decision was just a disaster all around.
Re: (Score:3)
> That law exists.
That particular law (as a right), doesn't apply. The border search exception is badly named, as a clarification that it does not traverse the 4th. You can disagree and assert that hydrogen doesn't have a proton, but that doesn't matter either. When the laws can describe a particular version of "privacy", maybe the US will consolidate the various views. I doubt it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
We need our Congress to write a law to limit warrantless searches at the border. That'll be harder to undo.
No, what you need is SCOTUS to say that shits unconstitutional. Then there is no longer any doubt or ways to weasel through loopholes that come with legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
They already did under Riley v. California [wikipedia.org]
Why that doesn't apply here, I have no clue, other than it's "within 100 miles of a border".
Re:Why does Biden want to violate your privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
They already did under Riley v. California [wikipedia.org]
Riley vs. California was about warrantless searches of cellphones following an arrest.
The police can't search your phone without convincing a judge that there is probable cause the phone contains evidence of a crime.
Why that doesn't apply here, I have no clue,
Border searches are not arrests so RvC doesn't apply.
In 2019, in Alasaad v. McAleenan, a Federal District Court ruled the phones couldn't be searched without a warrant, even at a border. The "news" in TFA is that the Circuit Court just overturned AvM.
So warrantless phone searches at the border are legal again.
Re: (Score:2)
But these are not searches at a border. That's a fiction. These are searches of people who have already entered the country. Ask yourself, if you pull out a knife and stab a border agent at the airport before passing immigration, do you get a pass because the offense wasn't committed in the USA?
Re: (Score:3)
Uncle Joe tells his Executive Branch employees "cut that shit out" and it's done. That's what Executive Orders exist for.
Such an Executive Order would not determine the practice as illegal though: a subsequent executive order could potentially reinstate it at any time for whatever reason.
What you want here is the practice being declared outright illegal, which would require being declared illegal in a superior court, or new legislation in that sense if no other recourse is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Uncle Joe tells his Executive Branch employees "cut that shit out" and it's done. That's what Executive Orders exist for.
Such an Executive Order would not determine the practice as illegal though: a subsequent executive order could potentially reinstate it at any time for whatever reason.
What you want here is the practice being declared outright illegal, which would require being declared illegal in a superior court, or new legislation in that sense if no other recourse is possible.
The practice is plainly illegal under the 4th Amendment. I doubt Biden would even have any idea this stuff is happening and I further doubt he'd care if he did know. I'm not sure what the fix is since laws clearly don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
The practice is plainly illegal under the 4th Amendment.
Obviously not.
Are you the arbiter of what is reasonable?
Re: (Score:3)
The practice is plainly illegal under the 4th Amendment.
Obviously not.
No, it's obviously so. Asset forfeiture is plainly illegal, too.
Look, I'm just telling the truth. Something you'll find is that, unfortunately, most judges don't want to rock the boat too much so they'll just go along with obvious bullshit on the part of the rest of the government. The abuse of the commerce clause is another similar issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying it is "plainly illegal" is clearly not correct, otherwise judges would systematically agree with your point of view (there are without doubt plenty of subjects on which you and they would agree are "plainly illegal", just not this one).
Who judges what the law says? In the US, it is, well, judges. And it is a hierarchy of judges so that most of the daily decisions are handled by the lower courts and when something controversial comes up it gets sent on higher. In this case, a lower judge got overruled
Re: (Score:2)
Getting them out of the habit of such trivial causes for invasions of privacy is a start.
The judges disagreed. (Score:3)
In her ruling, the judge who wrote the description said the 4th amendment doesn't restrict the search. She then goes on to say that there would be nothing stopping Congress from creating a rule that created protections for devices at the border that go beyond the protections of the 4th amendment and further says "Congress is better situated than the judiciary to identify the harms that threaten us at the
Re: (Score:3)
Biden could stop this easily. Why doesn't he?
Give him a break. He just got inaugurated three weeks ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden could stop this easily. Why doesn't he?
Because if he does there is a strong chance that crimes can be committed that are currently blocked this way. Possibly acts of terrorism as well.
When (not if) that happens and news breaks out on a big case the politics will all be about Biden being "soft on crime," "lets criminals cross the borders freely," or possible "unable to keep us safe from terrorists."
More than 9 out of 10 people, including the government officials who had their powers taken away, will not give a whit about the constitutional f
Re: (Score:2)
Since Bush the Selected, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
This policy has been policy since at least Obama and before.
Biden could stop this easily. Why doesn't he?
Undoing the damage Trump did takes time. Biden is still trying to get an overview over the mountain of crap that was left to him.
Not a right to Understand. (Score:3)
Not a right to understand... Gibberish is what you will store.
Foreign Espionage at border (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how many border agents have their main job as foreign or corporate espionage, and are assigned to work as border agents to gain access to all the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Good old service books being jammed into your smart devices to allow siphoning of your traffic.
Went through a couple of years where every client coming back from the States had blackberry devices not working properly until they were stripped out.
Re:Foreign Espionage at border (Score:5, Interesting)
Not many, there's too much money to be made allowing selected things to pass into/out of the country. Douglas, AZ, was the most notoriously corrupt border crossing in the country. A truck driver told my niece that he could carry her entire group across the border, all he had to do was hand an envelope with $10,000 to the guard on the US side and he could drive through uninspected. (They didn't have it so walked for 36 hours through the desert instead.) Their supervisor was promoted to the head of the Border Patrol, almost certainly because of their record of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many border agents have their main job as foreign or corporate espionage, and are assigned to work as border agents to gain access to all the data.
Indeed. Looks like a good place for some moles.
Nothing else is safe at the border either (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nothing else is safe at the border either (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's far, far worse than a day planner. Sticking with old-school analogies, it's your day planner, wallet, your Rolodex, taped recordings of calls, all your keys on your key ring, and probably all the filing cabinets in your office as well. That's what your modern-day smartphone or laptop can potentially contain.
Should a border agent, without any reasonable cause, be able to freely peruse this of anyone, just because? Any common-sense reading of the Constitution would interpret this as a warrant-less search, but we've taken to ignoring the obvious meaning of the Constitution, or ignoring the parts that are a bit on the inconvenient side, and this is where that leads. Let's read the 4th Amendment again:
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.
That's pretty clear to me. And funny enough, I see no "except at the border" or "unless it's a smartphone" clauses. Day planners and smartphones certainly fall under "papers" or "effects". The Constitution was deliberately written in plain, unambiguous language, and we still manage to see terrible outcomes like this.
I hope this goes to the Supreme Court, because this whole notion of seizing and searching whatever people want at the border, without reason or cause, is blatantly unconstitutional and needs to be stopped. If we can start with smartphones and laptops, that's fine, but day-planners should be safe as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nothing else is safe at the border either (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm well aware of the border search exception. I just happen to think it goes against the spirit of the 4th amendment, and thus should be ruled unconstitutional, at least for US citizens with absolutely no cause for suspicion. That seems a good bar for "unreasonable".
Nothing is set in stone, as SCOTUS members and societal mores change. Abortions were not universally legalized until 1973, for example. People's entire lives are on these devices. It's beyond intrusive to allow custom agents to snoop therein.
Re: Nothing else is safe at the border either (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "regulated" in the 2nd amendment does not mean what you think it means. It's unfortunate that plain language rots over time. They are talking about military "regulars", that is soldiers with standard equipment and training. The Supreme Court has made clear time and time again (most notably in U.S. v Miller) that the militia in the 2nd amendment "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Liberals want to change meanings of words to twist the Constitution to their preferred interpretation. That's not how the Bill of Rights works. You and I don't get to interpret these words how we want. Those who do get to interpret the Constitution have made it very clear what it means.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well regulated" in this context has *nothing* to do with being state sanctioned, or being subject to state regulation.
In the language of the time, "well regulated" means "properly functioning", as in a well-regulated watch.
So we can read this as "Since a properly functioning militia is necessary for the security of the country, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The whole "subject to regulation" train of thought has been thoroughly beaten to death, it's just not a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
. . .no court had interpreted that the 2nd amendment provided a right to private gun ownership. . .
That's not quite true. The supreme court had, in fact, ruled twice that the federal government couldn't restrict the ownership of private arms, the first of which wasn't really related to firearms, but rather to the bill of rights and the federal governments role in protecting citizen's right, I think. The specific contexts, though, were to say that states could restrict or limit ownership, while the federal government could not. A 1939 decision interpreted it such that the 14th amendment didn't extend i
Not enough crack in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
"Electronic device searches do not fit neatly into other categories of property searches, but the bottom line is that basic border searches of electronic devices do not involve an intrusive search of a person," she wrote. That lowers the bar for conducting them at the border, where the government's interest in security is "at its zenith."
There's literally not enough crack in the world for that argument to make sense. Electronic devices are special, but they're failing to acknowledge why they are special, and in doing so, are posing an argument that's so weak that it could be blown down in a light breeze.
There are two things that make electronic devices special:
The claim that the government has any interest in electronic devices at the border (beyond their interest in preventing the import of counterfeit electronics) is dubious at best, and claims that it has sufficient interest to warrant such an abusively invasive search are prima facie laughable.
This is, of course, irrelevant if there is sufficient probable cause to suspect that a person is actively engaged in a crime (e.g. being a drug mule or smuggling people across the border). But the mere presence of a device at the border makes it no more or less likely to be involved in such a crime than any other device that is not at the border. So the proximity argument for the government's interest in compelling such a search falls flat on its face, absent such probable cause.
More to the point, if there is actual probable cause, then they should have no trouble getting a warrant. Otherwise, it is a fishing expedition, using proximity to the border as an excuse for violating the Constitution, and because there is no meaningful difference between devices at the border and devices not at the border, their argument is tantamount to arguing for arbitrary government inspection of electronic devices anywhere, without geographical restrictions, which is something that few reasonable people would find palatable.
In short, their argument is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, if there is actual probable cause, then they should have no trouble getting a warrant. Otherwise, it is a fishing expedition, using proximity to the border as an excuse for violating the Constitution, and because there is no meaningful difference between devices at the border and devices not at the border, their argument is tantamount to arguing for arbitrary government inspection of electronic devices anywhere, without geographical restrictions, which is something that few reasonable people would find palatable.
In short, their argument is crap.
Therein lies the fatal flaw in your argument. Historically, being a Customs agent is full-time fishing expeditions. The only "probable cause" that has ever been required, for as long as there have been recognized borders, is your physical presence at the border crossing.
Not saying it's right, constitutional or even legal (in the strict sense), but, that is the reality - every face at the gate is assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, if there is actual probable cause, then they should have no trouble getting a warrant. Otherwise, it is a fishing expedition, using proximity to the border as an excuse for violating the Constitution, and because there is no meaningful difference between devices at the border and devices not at the border, their argument is tantamount to arguing for arbitrary government inspection of electronic devices anywhere, without geographical restrictions, which is something that few reasonable people would find palatable.
In short, their argument is crap.
Therein lies the fatal flaw in your argument. Historically, being a Customs agent is full-time fishing expeditions. The only "probable cause" that has ever been required, for as long as there have been recognized borders, is your physical presence at the border crossing.
And yet, if a border agent demands access to your bank account merely because you are crossing the border, a judge is going to laugh that agent out of court. How is demanding a search of an electronic device that can potentially have similarly sensitive records meaningfully different?
There doesn't have to be probable cause for a cursory physical search, because the government has a compelling interest to perform such searches that is significantly different than their interest in performing similar searche
Re: Not enough crack in the world (Score:2)
Who decides which judges aren't following the Constitution well enough?
Don't carry your phone when you travel, then (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the solution. That normalizes the violation. People shouldn't have to bend to the government's paranoia, the government should bend to the individual. That's the whole point of the first 10 amendments to the constitution -- and the whole thing itself. The 4th amendments states very clearly that the government lacks the authority to search a person's effects without a specific warrant that was issued due to probable cause. Nothing in the whole constitutions authorizes government fishing expedition
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the thing - you aren't guaranteed legal counsel or anything else. You are effectively Not In The US Yet and so have none of the rights you may normally enjoy, citizen or not.
And the "little pressure" they can apply is "entry denied".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't put any electronics in checked baggage, they show up on the X-rays and Fatherland Security will open it up to verify that it's not a trigger for a bomb (really). While they're there they'll likely just make sure that you'll never use that device for a bomb trigger by taking it home with them. (Miami is apparently really bad for that.)
Re: (Score:2)
VERY intrusive search (Score:3)
Many people, particularly people in their twenties, have nude or racy pictures on their phone.
Claiming it is not an intrusive search is a clear lack of experience with modern phones. Is it this kind of clue-less behavior that led to the phrase "OK Boomer".
Re: (Score:2)
No. I am saying that the actual, real life uses people make of equipment determine what is and what is not an intrusive search. A search of a briefcase is not intrusive because that is a primary means of exporting contraband, with minimal chance of containing private, intimate details of someone's life. A cellphone physically transported across the border (or even NEAR the border) is VERY VERY likely to have private, intimate details of a person's life and very very UNLIKELY to have contraband in it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Your information want to be free... (Score:3)
Warrantless and suspicionless electronic device searches can give border officers unfettered access to vast amounts of private information about our lives," said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "We are disappointed with the ruling and evaluating all options to ensure we don't lose our privacy rights when we travel.
So Canadians how do you feel about visiting the US now?
Re:Your information want to be free... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same as I always did. Take only throwaway electronics. Assume I could be searched or jailed for no reason. It's like going to China but with more guns.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "good" thing about flying to the US from Canada is that your customs agents are usually working in the Canadian airport, where we have a few more rights when clearing customs than we otherwise would.
Re: (Score:3)
And, sadly, Canadian border guards claim the same right to search electronics. So you should take the same precautions traveling here.
Re:Your information want to be free... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Canadian government advises citizens:
"Travellers who are concerned about groundless searches or other aspects of the U.S. directive may wish to exercise caution and either limit the devices they bring when travelling to foreign countries, including the U.S., or remove sensitive information from devices that could be searched. Another potential measure – particularly if travelling for work and carrying protected information, for instance information subject to solicitor-client privilege – is to store it in a secure cloud which would allow you to retrieve it once you arrive at your destination."
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian government advises citizens:
"Travellers who are concerned about groundless searches or other aspects of the U.S. directive may wish to exercise caution and either limit the devices they bring when travelling to foreign countries, including the U.S., or remove sensitive information from devices that could be searched. Another potential measure – particularly if travelling for work and carrying protected information, for instance information subject to solicitor-client privilege – is to store it in a secure cloud which would allow you to retrieve it once you arrive at your destination."
The above should be standard practice no matter what country you are traveling into and out of. Keep everything in the cloud. They can compel you to unlock your phone or your laptop but they can't read your email if it's not stored on either of those devices. They can't read your documents if they're locked safely away in the cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian government advises citizens:
"Travellers who are concerned about groundless searches or other aspects of the U.S. directive may wish to exercise caution and either limit the devices they bring when travelling to foreign countries, including the U.S., or remove sensitive information from devices that could be searched. Another potential measure – particularly if travelling for work and carrying protected information, for instance information subject to solicitor-client privilege – is to store it in a secure cloud which would allow you to retrieve it once you arrive at your destination."
The above should be standard practice no matter what country you are traveling into and out of. Keep everything in the cloud. They can compel you to unlock your phone or your laptop but they can't read your email if it's not stored on either of those devices. They can't read your documents if they're locked safely away in the cloud.
Actually, travelling in the EU they are mostly irrelevant now that the UK has left. But yes, whenever you go into an unfamiliar environment, think about what you want and not want to be carrying.
Re: (Score:2)
That is sound advice and the same I am giving. These border searches are not about stopping any real crime. They are about catching small fry to bolster the "success" numbers and giving the appearance of doing something.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, Canada does the same bullshit searches. But in our defense we don't even pretend to have a 4th Amendment :/
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also treat the US as a no-go area unless you have no choice.
I would go to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
I would go to jail before they would get in my devices. I would smash it right in front of them and lose everything on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I would too, but my wife would make my life more miserable than any border guard ever could.
Re: (Score:2)
I would go to jail before they would get in my devices. I would smash it right in front of them and lose everything on it.
Do that and you will go to jail. Unless they shoot you and you will go into a grave instead.
Re: (Score:3)
I would go to jail before they would get in my devices.
How long are you willing to sit in jail for your principles? An hour, a day, a month, a year, 10 years? It's great to make strong theoretical statements about how you would like to believe you would behave, but what would you really do? Personally I would like to think that I could stand so strong on this issue, but if I am coming home from an international trip and I am presented with the choice of handing over my device, being denied entry into the country, or going to jail until I comply, I am realistica
"intrusive search of person" ?? (Score:5, Informative)
What? The constitution says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.[2] "
It says right there your effects should be secure from unreasonable searching, without a highly specific warrant (that is only issued upon probable cause). Something doesn't have to intrude on your person to be considered unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're picking and choosing what portions of the sentence we like, let me mark some of them.
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.
See how that works?
Furthermore-
It says right there your effects should be secure from unreasonable searching, without a highly specific warrant
It does *not* say that. It has never said that, and has never been interpreted to mean that.
The prohibition against unreasonable searches is entirely separate from the scope limitations imposed upon warrants.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. In any authoritarian regime, there is always some way to make even the most egregious behavior by the authorities "legal". For example, everything done by the regime of the 3rd Reich was perfectly legal. The Allied nations had to invent new laws after the fact to make it possible to prosecute the main offenders. Not that I mind in this particular case, but all these hanged or imprisoned for what they did were not actually "criminals" in the legal sense.
Face it: US citizens only have rights if those
Re: (Score:3)
For example, everything done by the regime of the 3rd Reich was perfectly legal.
I don't disagree with your point in general- however this just isn't true.
A lot of key components of the Natsi takeover was in fact legal. But also, a lot was not.
See: 2 attempted coups (Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison for *treason*)
The Night of the Long Knives/Operation Hummingbird/Rohm Purge.
The latter was important, because after the purge, nobody in the Federal apparatus (Particularly the Wehrmacht and President of the Republic) wanted to die by speaking out against him.
Not that I mind in this particular case, but all these hanged or imprisoned for what they did were not actually "criminals" in the legal sense.
Sure they were. They
If I were a border agent (Score:2)
apt install keylogger.apk
Re: (Score:2)
E: Couldn't find any package by glob 'keylogger.apk'
Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that "the border" is magically 100 miles wide on the US side.
Re: (Score:2)
On the US side, and along any navigable waterway (such as the Mississippi or Colombia rivers), or a 100 mile radius of any international airport. Yes, Saint Louis, Denver, Fairbanks, and Des Moines are all considered to be "border territories" where you have essentially no rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that "the border" is magically 100 miles wide on the US side.
We've heard quite a bit about this "zone". Do you have any firm evidence that it applies in this case, or any other?
There are entire states that are considered "the border" if this is accurate.
Re:Keep in mind (Score:5, Informative)
8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3) [cornell.edu] states, "Any officer or employee of the Service ... shall have power without warrant - within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens", where "reasonable distance" is defined [cornell.edu] as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States".
More info on the 100-mile border strip here [aclu.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Keep in mind (Score:4, Informative)
And within 100 miles of (international) airports. It essentially covers the areas where 99% of the country lives.
Either (Score:2)
Wipe the phone and then re-sync it with the cloud.
Or
Store anything sensitive on a micro SD card, and then unmount / remove it. Good luck locating a removed microSD in a luggage..
Time for Border Hop App (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be long before attempting to cross the border with a wiped phone will constitute presumptive proof of guilt.
Good. The faster this can be brought in front of a judge that actually recognizes the Constitution, the better.
The Supreme Court, if necessary. Let's hope enough citizens actually still care about their privacy to drive it this far. "They" don't want the publicity around something like this.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be long before attempting to cross the border with a wiped phone will constitute presumptive proof of guilt.
Good. The faster this can be brought in front of a judge that actually recognizes the Constitution, the better.
The Supreme Court, if necessary. Let's hope enough citizens actually still care about their privacy to drive it this far. "They" don't want the publicity around something like this.
Indeed. For example, you can always "accidentally" drop your phone and break it and have to get a new one in an absolute hurry (airport shop?). There is no working way to poof that any of that was intentional and you cannot proof that its was not intentional either.
But there is a real possibility the courts will uphold this. In that case, I can only advise everybody that can to get out of the country that at that time clearly is a "shithole".
The solution should be technical, not legal. (Score:2)
Market opportunity (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me if this has been done already?
How about an app that moves all your data -- contacts, phone record, pictures -- everything into a cloud service. Encrypted before it leaves your phone, over an encrypted connections. Your phone basically ends up in the new condition.
Before getting on the plane going into the US, run that app over the hotel wifi. Once you cross the border and you are home, one click restores everything.
Why wouldn't that work? People who are worried about it would
Re: (Score:3)
For iPhones, I believe what you are describing is Time Machine with iCloud storage. Backup your iPhone, reset it to factory specs, go through the border, and restore it from the cloud. I assume there's some analog for Android, but I've never tried to back up my phone, so I don't know.
Re: Market opportunity (Score:3)
On iOS turn on encrypted cloud backups. Reset phone to factory state before border crossing. At your hotel login to iCloud and restore. No app needed.
Even on Android an individual app would not have the permissions to access what you describe. It requires an OS-level implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since this equates in practical terms to Only someone who wishes to be detained brings electronic items on a border plane, just officially announce that you must ship electronic items Separately. Then there's no need to search anything. They just get in the mail in a few days, Or upon arrival if they time their shipping properly.
More likely they will get lost in the mail, never to turn up again. What does not get "legally" stolen without ever telling you ends up in the collection of some DHS thug.
the only problem (Score:3)
That lowers the bar for conducting them at the border, where the government's interest in security is "at its zenith."
fails to consider is that (at least according to ACLU) the territory which is considered "at the border" is within 100 miles of the border and 2 out of 3 people in the US live there [aclu.org].
It's so cute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. (Clinton, if anyone cares) (Score:2)
I assume you're joking.
If you actually care, Judge Lunch is a Clinton appointee.
He appointed her once, the Senate declined to confirm her. (She was previously an activist attorney).
He appointed her again and she made it through the Senate on the second try.
Sneaker net (Score:2)