Border responses are little different to the support the average person gets from a tech giant. You get the response you get and that’s it. You need deep pockets, serious friends or an online furore or you have no choice but to remain oblivious. As with the tech giants, for the decent people caught up by mistake, it’s frustrating and terrifying.
No one should have to travel in fear
111–120 of 152 posts
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#112It's analogous to police "searching" a homeless person by throwing, tearing up and destroying all of their property without even reasonable suspicion... they do it and get away with murdering people time-after-time because they can under a thinly-duplicitous cover of qualified immunity (at least in the US).
Although police at the borders don't have to have any reasonable suspicion for searches, racial profiling, secret watch lists and targeted intimidation are a likely consequent of an unfettered military-industrial complex that long since ceased to do more than security theater and carry water for the corporate elites. So it should come with zero surprise that such an empire's law enforcement acts with impunity however it pleases and only ensures to "serve and protect" the rich elites' and their property, effectively creating a socioeconomic apartheid of gated communities and post-apocalyptic anarchist favelas, both in terms of geography and public discrimination, that tears a society apart into a failed, third-world, backwards country.
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#113Here's the thing: If it was a legitimate search with real public security purpose, there is no excuse for letting him go without completing the search. If it was not a legitimate search with real public purpose, there is no excuse for the threats or retaliation. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the search, the behavior here is unjustifiable.
Some other possibilities come to mind, and perhaps there are more: * It was a legitimate search wrt information available at the time, and then more/better information became available, and it was no longer legitimate. (Assuming a certain definition of "legitimate".) * It was a legitimate search, and cloning and/or compromising the devices took time. (Just devil's advocate, for intellectual curiosity, not disagreeing…
My reading of https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._El... is that they didn't take the devices out of his sight/control, they just demanded he unlock them and hand them over.
> CBP officers searched Dr. Gal’s wallet and all his luggage, and asked questions about everything they found. When they discovered Dr. Gal’s Apple-issued electronic devices, the officers first asked Dr. Gal to pull up his itinerary on his mobile phone, and then to hand the unlocked device over to CBP. Dr. Gal responded that he would email them the itinerary, but that he would need to speak with a lawyer and his employer before giving CBP officers full access to his mobile phone.
...
> Moreover, there was no reason for any CBP officers—TTRT or otherwise—to detain and interrogate Dr. Gal or his devices. Notably, CBP officers did not confiscate and retain Dr. Gal’s devices, which they were authorized to do under the Directive and presumably would have done if they truly felt that they possessed a basis for detaining Dr. Gal or keeping his devices. See Directive, § 5.3.3. Instead, CBP officers proceeded to demand that Dr. Gal provide immediate, unlimited access to his devices.
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just say I have a lot or respect for the possibilities I'm aware of, together with a general sense that there's a lot that I don't know. In any case, just because you usually get your laptop handed right back, it doesn't follow that you always will. If it matters to you, buy that burner.
Even so: 1. I can expect that there's a chance that my laptop will be taken from me (and perhaps returned modified or perhaps taken permanently) while still not being okay with that. It's one thing to expect a right to be violated; it's another thing to give up. 2. It's not unreasonable to travel with a laptop while expecting a small chance that it's taken, in which case you'll buy a new one and restore from backup,…
Seems easier to buy a "burner" at home though, and then it's indefinitely reusable.
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry instead of assuming can we get an answer? OP? ACLU? The author mentioned he has taken flights since then, he should be able to answer if he still gets TSA Pre, nobody's asked yet its just as likely that they literally only took the card from him.
They found the card with my passport. They took the card, and a few days later my status was revoked as well.
Are you in the process of trying to get it reinstated, or not yet? (The ACLU letter doesn't seem to include a demand for reinstating it, but I guess you'd be approaching it in some other way)
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I was going to say—I expect (as a citizen) that within 100 miles of the border I can be searched without a warrant by CBP and be detained if I refuse, but I don't expect that I can be compelled to unlock my devices and be detained if I refuse.
Is there really a difference, in principle? "Show me what you have concealed in your pockets" vs. "Show me what you have concealed in your devices" -- aren't these two commands legally equivalent?
I think the US courts see them as different because you have different expectations about whether other (non-government) people might see them. The contents of my pocket might fall out, and they get put on a conveyor belt at airport security. But files on my phone don't have this level of visibility.
I think it is also legally relevant to put a passcode on your phone.
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#117It's horrible but the case-law seems fairly well settled; various courts have ruled that lots of searches that would otherwise violate the 4th Amendment are totally permissible for CBP agents within 100 miles of the border and at customs checkpoints within international airports. I'd love to be surprised if there is a legitimate case here.
Sure, but you should still have the right to have a lawyer confirm that for you, no? The entire reason we have the right to legal representation is that individuals are not expected to understand all the case law in the country. A lawyer can totally say "Yeah, they're allowed to search you, unlock your phone"—but the ability to confirm that with a lawyer is an important right.
I'm quite positive (not a lawyer) that unlocking records (e.g. phone, phone book, laptop etc.) is not part of any legal search and under purview of wiretapping or seizure laws, much less privacy laws.
Those require a court order in general unlike a typical police search... unless CBP has leeway there too in which case it is a monster.
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claimed their dog indicated on our car... but that's a bunch of BS because the dog was already sitting next to them when we pulled up and didn't do anything further(exactly the same thing the dog did for the car in front of us). He then tried to get us to say we had personal use amounts of drugs on us and he was only looking for massive amounts of narcotics(the "amount cartels have" according to him). I was with a…
If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car. They can take detain you and search every nook and cranny of both the car and its passengers. Again - nothing distinct about being near the border for that. As you said, it's not objective whether the dog legitimately signaled. But IIUC you have limited ability to demonstrate that. (anyone know of cases around this?)
> If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car.
In other words:
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless a dog barks."
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I was going to say—I expect (as a citizen) that within 100 miles of the border I can be searched without a warrant by CBP and be detained if I refuse, but I don't expect that I can be compelled to unlock my devices and be detained if I refuse.
Is there really a difference, in principle? "Show me what you have concealed in your pockets" vs. "Show me what you have concealed in your devices" -- aren't these two commands legally equivalent?
Personally, I don't think so.
I think most people have a higher expectation of privacy for their data than their belongings outside their home.
And the Supreme Court agrees - Riley v. California:
> Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee’s per- son. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical reali- ties and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pic- tures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an el- ement of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives.
Re: No one should have to travel in fear
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time an article like this pops up I am validated in my decision to no longer travel to the United States.
This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a personal laptop with naked picture…
[deleted]