151–160 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they do this rather than simply image the device? How do you know what their protocol is?
Because opening a phone and looking at the first few texts/emails is faster than imaging. One cannot take a phone and properly image it in the 5-10 minutes they spend with the average phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If regular people wanted freedom, they would just fly private!
This guy get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search If it's optional and I can and will refuse, fine. If it's not,and I'm not attempting to cross a border, they can get stuffed. For domestic travel, they do not need to examine the data - only the physical device needs to be examined to rule out security risk. They can do that non-intrusively with imaging and chemic…
I should clarify: If them looking through my data is not optional and I can't refuse, and I'm not at a border crossing (which is still bullshit imo, but well trodden precedent), they'd better have goddamn signed warrant.
Is there any niddling contract law in purchasing plane tickets?
Remember the 5th Amendment applies to passwords. No law enforcement officer may EVER compel you to log in to a device with a password / pass code / unlock pattern, for any reason.
This is the way things should work. But, there was a widely reported case recently where a man accused of possessing child pornography has been held in jail for a long time [0]. From what I can tell, he's been in jail for contempt of court for nearly 2 and a half years! [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indef...
One case decided that law enforcement can compel you to turn over documents that it knows you have possession of, regardless of where they exist. You're not testifying against yourself; you're turning over evidence.
Another case has decided that they can't compel you to turn over a password so they can search for evidence.
It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search. However, from a security perspective it would be awful if they could disappear with your device whenever they wanted - that certainly makes me uncomfortable.
>> It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search. Not likely to work: "We just want to search your house for 30 minutes" or "you can have your document back after we photocopy it, so no warrant needed." The idea is that they cannot do certain things without a warrant.
This scenario would be quite a bit more akin to "let me have that locked briefcase you're carrying through security, no need for you to unlock it" and then returning it to you locked after 10 minutes.
Was that a 4th amendment search if they claim that they didn't look through your briefcase?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a modern society, disallowing to fly doesn't give full movement rights for a person. You are much less likely to travel to Europe if you have to use a transaltlantic boat for example. :p
yes but you could say that of cars too (and courts have ruled mandatory DUI tests legal)
Not to mention, just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search. Not likely to work: "We just want to search your house for 30 minutes" or "you can have your document back after we photocopy it, so no warrant needed." The idea is that they cannot do certain things without a warrant.
>"We just want to search your house for 30 minutes" or "you can have your document back after we photocopy it, so no warrant needed." This scenario would be quite a bit more akin to "let me have that locked briefcase you're carrying through security, no need for you to unlock it" and then returning it to you locked after 10 minutes. Was that a 4th amendment search if they claim that they didn't look through your brie…
It's a seizure whether or not they looked through it, and it's a search if they examined—by any means, technical or otherwise—the contents in a way they wouldn't have been practically able to without seizing it, irrespective of whether they opened it (and even more independent of whether they claim they opened it.)
I am TOTALLY ok with TSA reading my last text messages before I go on a flight. Those last few texts someone sends before committing a terrorist action, could send an extremely strong signal to authorities and possibly prevent a disaster. If the extra security results in a strange TSA agent getting to enjoy some surprise dick pics, well that's the price of freedom Jerry.
Maybe we should take a serious look at that. It could seriously protect tens of thousands!
I guess they didn't read Riley v California[1]. In the opinion of the SCOTUS: > Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founde…
For example, the 9th circuit court of appeals in U.S. vs Davis[1] held that airport searches are "administrative searches" and are permissible in much broader ways than searches while being arrested.
[1] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/04...
I guess they didn't read Riley v California[1]. In the opinion of the SCOTUS: > Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founde…