Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 617 posts

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#141

Post by Spooky23 »

duahncjak wrote: post #124
papln wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. the Consitution makes a distinction between 'person' and 'citizen', but is painfully ambiguous about 'People'. In context, 'people' most likely means 'citizens'. Even if you mean 'persons', not 'people', it's still largely ambiguous. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution... 'People' have rights: > the right of the people peaceably to assemble > the right of the people to keep a…

Based on this reading, “people” elect the senate. If “people” includes travelers, does that mean travelers get to vote?

They aren’t prohibited by the constitution. In many jurisdictions, non-citizen residents can vote in local elections.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#142

Post by elil17 »

reaperducer wrote: post #119
Rebelgecko wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.

I don't think that is true in practice It is true in practice. One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.

This gets a couple things wrong:

1) People who aren’t citizens are still entitled to public education. Many green card holders go to US public schools, for instance

2) Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents immigration status

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#145

Post by namdnay »

landryraccoon wrote: post #81
aerovistae wrote: post #44

Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."

Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087

But they don’t need to take you to court to refuse you entry and put you on the first flight back home...

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#146

Post by refurb »

mikece wrote: post #10
theandrewbailey wrote: post #5

OK, so what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? Their actions have effectively said that for almost 20 years.

Ask them to explain what their reasonable suspicion basis for wanting to search your phone is. Without reasonable suspicion it's, by definition, an unreasonable search.

And if they tell you stuff it? What are you going to do.

The best approach is to know your rights, remind them of them, then let them do what they are going to do.

Bad searches get solved in court, not at the time of the search. You may get lucky and have them back down if it's clear you know they have no right to search, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#147

Post by xyzzyz »

reaperducer wrote: post #119
Rebelgecko wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.

I don't think that is true in practice It is true in practice. One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.

Only because the Supreme Court decided in 5-to-4 decision that the states don't have a "substantial state interest" that would allow them to deny it. See Plyler v. Doe.

Which is to say, the constitutional rights of non-citizens are hardly as obvious as they are for citizens.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#148

Post by bzbarsky »

umvi wrote: post #77
knodi123 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why is profiling bad in context of airplane security? Why is airplane security different than other contexts? > 100% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people of X country (Xians), and 0% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people from Y country That's not the real world. There have been white terrorists, christian terrorists, etc. There have been muslim terrorists from most countries. So…

> Why is airplane security different than other contexts? Because hundreds of lives are at stake, unlike (most) other contexts like screening college applications or work visa applications. > That's not the real world. There have been white terrorists, christian terrorists, etc. Are you saying terrorists happen at equal frequencies across all demographics? There have been Christian terrorists, yes, but those strike m…

> Has a terrorist attack ever been carried out by a couple with children in the history of the world?

Depends on how you define "children". E.g. see https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/07/terror-attacks-the-inhum... but we're talking 15-year-olds, not 5-year-olds here (and note: 75% girls).

There is definitely an instance of a pregnant white woman trying to bring a bomb onto a plane (albeit unwittingly); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

You are, of course, correct that the frequencies for the various things here are not uniform.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#149

Post by nikanj »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #90
vkou wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a border agent is giving me shit, the last thing I'm worried about is whether or not any evidence they gather is going to be used against me in court. 99.9% of the time, the most negative outcome of this kind of interaction will be losing my stuff, being arrested and held for anywhere up to 24 hours, or being denied entry. For most people, these are a compelling enough reasons to comply with a power-tripping borde…

The metric the agent's boss's boss's boss cares about is convictions because that's how they justify their budget "look at all these criminals we're catching". If they can't use the illegal searches in order to convict people of crimes they're much less likely to spend the man hours doing them as routine procedure. Also, it's not exactly hard for a lawyer to argue that you were coerced into consenting to a search in…

Alas, a metric they just don’t care about is passenger feelings. The power tripping is real, and most people would consider being detained for hours to be a big issue, even if it never even goes to court.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#150

Post by jakeogh »

Spooky23 wrote: post #140
Rebelgecko wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.

The well regulated militia is subject to regulation.

Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
Post reply on HN