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

151–160 of 617 posts

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

#151

Post by namdnay »

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…

> There have been Christian terrorists, yes, but those strike me as exceedingly rare compared to Muslim terrorists

In the USA??? I think the opposite is true. How many terrorist attacks have you had on US soil this year, and how many of the perpetrators identified as Christian vs Muslim?

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

#152

Post by iandanforth »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #120
dontbenebby wrote: post #95

IANAL, so can someone help me understand: How is this the final say if it's out of a court in Boston? Isn't that only one circuit?

It's not even a circuit yet, this is a district court judgement. It is not a final say.

Hypothetically if it weren't appealed would it be the final say?

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

#153

Post by vilhelm_s »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #18

So will the CBP be ordered to destroy all the images they made of devices searched at the border?

No.

> As part of the relief sought, Plaintiffs seek expungement of all information gathered from, or copies made of, the contents of Plaintiffs’ electronic devices including social media information and device passwords. [...] Although this is not a criminal case, considering the remedy for the unconstitutional search in the criminal context is illustrative of the extraordinary nature of the remedy sought here. Even where law enforcement officers have conducted a search in violation of the Constitution, the “fruits of [the] search need not be suppressed if the agents acted with the objectively reasonable belief that their actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” [...] even where criminal proceedings followed a border search that exceeded the bounds of the Fourth Amendment and the fruits of same were suppressed, expungement of the border agents’ files would not necessarily follow. Nor should it where other deterrents to border agents’ unconstitutional searches remain in place. [...] In light of this other relief, including declaratory relief, the Court DENIES the request for expungement of information

https://www.aclu.org/sites/all/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.h...

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

#154

Post by soledades »

andrewla wrote: post #105
ISL wrote: post #2

"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." Sounds like the Court got it right.

> unreasonable

> suspicionless

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

#155

Post by yogenpro »

Finnucane wrote: post #28
tus88 wrote: post #20

But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?

If you're on US soil you're subject to US law, including all provisions of the Constitution. And the Constitution makes a distinction between 'citizens' and 'people' (i.e., everybody, including noncitizens)

Except travelers are not "on us soil" until granted entry by customs. Customs could just deny entry if foreign travelers won't voluntarily consent to search.

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

#156

Post by refurb »

garg wrote: post #50
umvi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: why is profiling bad in context of airplane security? If 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 (Yians), it seems like a pointless charade of political correctness to check Xians and Yians with equal frequency. I say profile the heck out of Xians. Stop and frisk 100% of Xians an…

Your opinion is unpopular because it makes no sense and does not improve security. The attacker will simply recruit a "Yian" because that's your blind spot now.

I would actually argue it does improve security since you're spending more time on the people who have a higher probability of being a terrorist versus those that don't.

What doesn't improve security is just random screening where you're frisking 4-year olds and senior citizens and letting the adult males walk on by.

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

#157

Post by thinkloop »

tus88 wrote: post #20

But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?

It's unfortunate that this is a reasonable question. I've been surprised to learn how conditional being treated like a human being really is (location, citizenship, etc.). It would be my preference for my country to treat all people kindly, fairly, equally.

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

#158

Post by refurb »

cdmcmahon wrote: post #47
umvi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: why is profiling bad in context of airplane security? If 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 (Yians), it seems like a pointless charade of political correctness to check Xians and Yians with equal frequency. I say profile the heck out of Xians. Stop and frisk 100% of Xians an…

I'll (possibly inaccurately) assume this is in good faith. The most obvious reason that profiling is bad, even in your inaccurate and simplistic hypothetical scenario, is that just because all airplane terrorist attacks came from people of X country, does not imply that everyone from X country commits terrorist airplane attacks. Therefore you are unfairly and immorally forcing invasive searches on many innocent peopl…

Israel profiles like crazy and it works well. When I was traveling through there, I got a lot more questions. It just makes sense. A lone adult males traveling versus an Israel senior citizen.

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

#159

Post by abathur »

thisisnico wrote: post #24
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body. Practically, this means donating to the ACLU and related groups. It also means, if you’re party to injustice, suing or reaching out to organisation who can help you sue to assert our rights.

Do these suspicions require some sort of preliminary-evidence of those suspicions before acted upon?

Edit: Oops. Fixed a use of "probable cause" where I meant "reasonable suspicion".

IANAL, but my rough impression from the opinion is kinda. It seems like the reasonable suspicion can emerge entirely from the interaction itself, but that it should be based facts/reasons the agent(s) can articulate.

I found the section titled "7. Reasonable Suspicion, not Probable Cause, Applies to Both Such Searches" on pages 33-38 of the actual opinion (embedded on https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-opin...) provided good background on this.

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

#160

Post by raincom »

ars wrote: post #31
MaupitiBlue wrote: post #7

Haven't read the opinion, but I'd anticipate that this will be reversed on appeal. My guess is that this was either an Obama or Clinton judge. Both my Crim Pro and Con Law professors skipped border search cases and summed them up with "you have no rights at the border." That's been the common law since King Tut.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_J._Casper Obama Judge. But you should realize you are basically saying Judges are not impartial arbiters, but rather biased based on who appointed them.

Richard Posner from the 7th circuit said something like this: (a) decide which way one wants to rule (b) find the relevant reasoning to effect (a).

What we are told is the other way around, a fiction: Reasoning drives the decisions.

Sure, judges can't decide arbitrarily. They have a range of reasonings, a set of outcomes, along with prevailing political/intellectual/economic winds. Just pick an appropriate combination.

Post reply on HN