11–20 of 76 posts
Can someone offer a simple explanation of why the EFF and ACLU might succeed? I remember seeing big signs at US border crossings that said YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS in big allcaps, and I think the law is mostly on their side. Those signs are probably still there.
But only for people who are US citizens, or at least permanent residents. It’s not making visiting the US any more appealing to the rest of the world.
Airport searches should be limited to what might cause a transportation security issue. Nothing on a mobile device qualifies, especially since in-flight wifi provides a way to download anything to the device in flight that is not present when checked at Security. Regular border searches should have no right to look at devices at all, since there is no plane or train to endanger and there are even more ways to beam ov…
But only for people who are US citizens, or at least permanent residents. It’s not making visiting the US any more appealing to the rest of the world.
If they can’t establish a better situation for US citizens, there’s no way they could ever generalize it. Seems like a sound tactic on the ACLU/EFFs part to me.
The idea that the CBP can make a meaningful difference to the security of this country by searching the informational effects of .1% of incoming travelers, when there's I-don't-know-how-many gigabits/sec of connectivity to other countries that anyone in the US can use by firing up their smartphone, is ludicrous on its face. The idea that they can accurately select the .1% of travelers that might be carrying evidence of a crime just by looking at them is equally ludicrous.
It would seem to me that the Federal Government is in charge of the border, and that until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights. There are many things that need to get checked at the border. Maybe they could just have a judge there to stamp each request as it goes through.
So if I need to leave the country and come back, and must bring them, I just forfeited my expectation of privacy guaranteed by the bill of rights?
Can someone offer a simple explanation of why the EFF and ACLU might succeed? I remember seeing big signs at US border crossings that said YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS in big allcaps, and I think the law is mostly on their side. Those signs are probably still there.
It would seem to me that the Federal Government is in charge of the border, and that until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights. There are many things that need to get checked at the border. Maybe they could just have a judge there to stamp each request as it goes through.
I have my whole life on my phone and laptop. Most of the details and particularly papers , as stated in the 4th, of my life are contained there. I also need my devices to function and keep up like a normal person in 2017, and to keep a job. So if I need to leave the country and come back, and must bring them, I just forfeited my expectation of privacy guaranteed by the bill of rights?
The above poster suggests even worse.
"until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights.". They suggest you have no constitutional rights outside of the US border. Forget your cell phone, this would imply that black bag operations are completely legal as long as the US citizen is outside of US borders at the time.
It would seem to me that the Federal Government is in charge of the border, and that until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights. There are many things that need to get checked at the border. Maybe they could just have a judge there to stamp each request as it goes through.