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

181–190 of 617 posts

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

#181

Post by dontbenebby »

kickopotomus wrote: post #128
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 is not necessarily the final say. DHS may turn around and challenge the ruling which may then be picked up by the Court of Appeals for further review. However, the Court of Appeals does not have to review the case and even if they did, they very well may agree with the ruling from the district court.

So as a practical matter, is it likely border officials will honor the ruling?

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

#182

Post by babypuncher »

tus88 wrote: post #20

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

I would argue that any individual deserves most or all rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, regardless of citizenship or geographic location. These are fundamental human rights. I'm aware this is not how the constitution is written, it's just my opinion.

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

#183

Post by vageli »

baddox wrote: post #139
EpicEng wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a silly (mis)characterization of what this is. Some rights are only afforded to the citizenry, and that is not inherently evil and is often the only reasonable approach. Other rights are afforded to everyone. The discussion centers around teasing out what the Constitution means when it uses person/people.

I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated.

> I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated.

Don't different countries have different views of rights? What happens when those rights are at odds? For example, Turkish people can't speak ill against their governments [0]. This contrasts with countries that have fewer restrictions on speech, like America.

So I think the main issue is, how can all humans have the same protections if different jurisdictions protect different things?

Or is "protections" here more about procedural rights?

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_Penal_C...

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

#184

Post by Taniwha »

wila wrote: post #169
Taniwha wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make that argument then the customs officers are also NOT on US soil and have no authority to search phones (or do anything) at all

But good luck explaining that to them.

I agree, I think this is more an argument to be made in court

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

#185

Post by jakeogh »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #167
jakeogh wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have the higher courts have addressed that? The tourist example I'm expecting they _should_ since they are not breaking any law. Hm. Page 27: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf I'm ignoring FFL's because it's not directly relevant.

There was a recent court case about this (Rehaif v. U.S) where the Supreme Court made a decision about the law making it a felony to knowingly possess a gun in the US while here illegally. The prosecutor said "knowingly" just refers to the gun possession, but Rehaif's lawyer said it should refer to knowingly possessing the gun and knowing that you weren't in the country legally (Rehaif claimed that he hadn't read an…

Looks like it was recently (thankfully) reversed and remanded: https://ballotpedia.org/Rehaif_v._United_States

Weird quirk with the huntling license, so that second example is a state law?

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

#186

Post by 1123581321 »

wnoise wrote: post #177
1123581321 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution does not specify punishments for violating it. Congress could pass legislation specifying punishments in accordance with this ruling, but it would not be retroactive.

They did: 42 USC 1983. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 ). It technically only applies to actions by state by state (or local) officials, not federal, though SCOTUS created an equivalent for federal actions known as Bivens ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag... ). However, SCOTUS has also limited both with the doctrine of qualified immunity. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Interesting. Thank you.

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

#187

Post by baddox »

magduf wrote: post #175
baddox wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated.

Not everyone gets the same rights. That's why we have the word "citizen", and why citizens get different legal status. One of those rights is the right to vote. Are you saying you think anyone should be able to vote in the elections of whatever country they want? That seems pretty silly.

No, I don’t think everyone ought to have the right to enter my house at night time either, but my point does not collapse to such absurd suggestions. I was, of course, referring to the phrase “the people” in the text of the fourth amendment. I hope I don’t sound too silly suggesting that the right to not have property searched and seized unreasonably is not something that ought to depend on which country you were born or have gained citizenship in.

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

#188

Post by arcticbull »

xyzzyz wrote: post #172
arcticbull wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law. You don't want to create a patchwork of different rules in different states based on presence granted and retracted at the sole discretion of the federal government. Once you're on US soil, you're largely treated the same as anyone else on US soil (or at least through the same framewo…

This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law. This argument makes sense, but I think it proves too much: states already have plenty of laws that restrict certain rights or privileges to citizens only. Your argument, as I understand it, is that since immigration status is a matter of federal law, states cannot deny a right (to K-1…

> What do you mean by "seen out", exactly?

Committing a crime of moral turpitude as a non-immigrant (and even some green card holders) makes you eligible for deportation. [1]

[1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/legal-re...

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

#189

Post by joshred »

Taniwha wrote: post #161
yogenpro wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you make that argument then the customs officers are also NOT on US soil and have no authority to search phones (or do anything) at all

It's already pretty well established as law. There's not really any room to argue.

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

#190

Post by umvi »

wan23 wrote: post #180
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…

So what you're proposing is that we should take the set of countries that have had an airplane terrorist and check 100% of people from those countries, and none of the others? So because once a British man tried to light his shoes on fire to blow up a plane we should specially check 100% of the 3.8 million British citizens traveling to the US per year, but we should check 0% of those traveling on North Korean passpor…

How about more like your country gets more strikes the more airplane terrorists you've had? So Britain has 1 strike, but Saudi Arabia has probably 20+ strikes. So you are 20x more likely to be searched if you are Saudi Arabian than British.

And if you are from a country that has never had an airplane terrorist, like North Korea, why should you be screened? Maybe you should be profiled for other things, but not terrorism.

Post reply on HN