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

201–210 of 617 posts

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

#201

Post by magduf »

baddox wrote: post #187
magduf wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bor…

I do agree, but that's not what you wrote before. You wrote that "all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated", which implies you think everyone should have the same rights. This clearly doesn't make sense, as I pointed out about voting rights. The bottom line is, not everyone has the same rights. Citizens of any country have more rights than non-citizens; there's nothing abnormal about this. You can argue that certain rights should extend to everyone (and I would agree), but this argument seems to have some disagreement about whether unreasonable-search-and-seizure is a right that should only be afforded to citizens or not, and I'm just pointing out that non-citizens don't get all the same rights as citizens.

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

#202

Post by gabelevi »

compiler-guy wrote: post #195

I support this ruling very strongly, and am super-glad it went the way it did. But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy. Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.

This was just a federal court, not the Supreme Court.

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

#203

Post by zackmorris »

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."

I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins.

The US was founded on habeas corpus, and it doesn't matter what laws have been written since, or what national threats have been used as an excuse to undermine our inalienable rights. Your duty is to the future people of the US so that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't infringed.

My feeling is that this house of cards of government officials skirting the law and pleading ignorance is going to come crashing down in the near future. They know that they are breaking the law. They're just assuming that you will be afraid and let them.

I had hoped that we were past all this and the 21st century would to be free of injustice, but unfortunately we're all going to have to fight just like our ancestors did. But I think that better times really are just around the corner, as long as we stay informed and unified.

Related: congresswoman Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen on asylum seekers being turned away at US border crossings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk

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

#204

Post by jessaustin »

adiM wrote: post #170
jessaustin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly parent is not talking about children born in USA, so your second point is not relevant. Your first point is just a restatement of parent.

The grant-parent said "children of _illegal_ immigrants" and the parent is talking about "children of _Green card holders_". Green card holders are those who have immigrated legally.

The question of the thread is to what extent non-citizens have particular rights. Parents cite two distinct yet substantially similar groups of non-citizens (one presumes that children don't have much agency with respect to the circumstances of their immigration). Both examples argue in the same direction on the question of the thread, so why does this distinction matter?

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

#205

Post by EpicEng »

colonwqbang wrote: post #200
vageli wrote: post #183

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. 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,…

What is your argument here? The fact that human rights are not respected in all countries doesn't mean that humans don't have rights.

It means that we can't agree on the list to begin with, and it's not always cut and dry.

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

#206

Post by BrainInAJar »

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)

at the border you are not yet on US soil. They can deny you for any reason at all

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

#207

Post by abathur »

abathur wrote: post #159
thisisnico wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Later on page 46 there's a more succinct statement.

The judge is evaluating one element of the relief the plaintiffs sought--that the agencies be required to expunge data copied during a search which, per the ruling, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the judge is addressing one stated reason for seeking that relief--concern that data obtained unconstitutionally will leave them forever flagged for extra scrutiny.

> "in the future, whether information has been retained from prior searches or not, agents must be able to point to specific and articulable facts for reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiffs’ electronic devices contain contraband, which also addresses the concern about any likelihood, greater than the general public of U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. borders, of being subject to a non-cursory search."

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

#208

Post by jolmg »

vageli wrote: post #183
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.

> 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,…

> Don't different countries have different views of rights?

And so they would apply their views in their own jurisdiction.

> What happens when those rights are at odds?

Whichever jurisdiction you stand in correspond to the rights that prevail for you.

The way I see it, a country says what the rights of people/humans are, and they defend those beliefs in their own jurisdiction, where they have the absolute power to.

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

I think baddox's comment does not necessarily imply all humans in the world. I interpreted it as all humans in a given jurisdiction.

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

#209

Post by lvs »

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)

That's completely untrue, as much as it would make sense for it to be. In fact, constitutional rights have not been applied universally to noncitizens by courts. Everything from the First Amendment onward has been limited by case law as it applies to non-US persons.

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

#210

Post by BrainInAJar »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #206
Finnucane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

at the border you are not yet on US soil. They can deny you for any reason at all

and constitutionally speaking, permanent exile isn't considered a punishment for noncitizens, so SCOTUS can rule whatever they want is unconstitutional, it still means they're gonna do it
Post reply on HN