Does "travellers" include non-US citizens?
Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
211–220 of 617 posts
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
So what, I'm the only one in the US that's heard of a "mass shooting" taking place? Consider thinking before forming opinions.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#213Earlier 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
The last time I so much as questioned an american customs agent about something they asked me to do, I was interrogated for 2 hours about my life, job, friends, family, phone searched, car flipped through, etc. They even had 2 canine units circle my car and jump in and out of it at least 10 times each. Talk about a heavy handed approach.
Some people get off on power, and this job is as close to having power over people as some can get.
As long as you know you're not actually carrying contraband or is a terrorist, just smile, comply when reasonable, and then say politely that you'd like to see their manager to file a complaint.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#214Does "travellers" include non-US citizens?
I'm not a lawyer, but afaik the Constitution protects equally citizens and not citizens
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'd like us to believe that. That's why they appropriated the term "the press" for themselves when it originally referred to a machine that was used to print. When 1A mentions "freedom... of the press", it's as one of a group of rights that apply to all people, not a group of different parties that have rights. That is, 1A protects everyone's freedom to operate a printing press, or use some other means of publishi…
I’d like to learn more about your interpretation of what “the press” is referring to; it strikes me as interesting that “operating a printing press” would be the explicitly enumerated right in such a (mostly) broad text, but then I am aware of the cultural differences over that many years means it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Do you have any articles or books I could read about this?
The point is the government can't arbitrarily take away your medium of communication you legally own and use. Barring random specific issues (such as noise ordinances), if you own a megaphone (metaphorical or not) you can use it to spread your speech. If people could only exercise free speech by whispering quietly to themselves then it may as well not exist. You could start by reading wikipedia about freedom of the press.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to that, as a foreigner you don't even have a right to an attorney as long as they do not arrest you. So yes they can just send you back, it is in their capabilities and there's nothing the foreigner can do to counter that decision.
Of course not. Every country has the right to determine who is admissible. There is no right to enter a country where you're not a citizen.
Yes, but the whole point of the attorney is to make sure that the correct laws are applied to you. This ensures that it's the country that's determining who is admissible rather than just a petty tyrant who got out on the wrong side of the bed.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#217I 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 didn't go to the Supreme Court. A district court in Boston heard this case.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Interesting, I had no idea.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I suspect you may know this, but there exist many locations and circumstances wherein various rights are suspended. It sounds like this recent ruling may have rendered that page out of date. From your link: > According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a…
" It sounds like this recent ruling may have rendered that page out of date. " Not exactly. Here, the only change is related to digital devices being searched. Everything else that happens at the border regarding searches is unchanged. So the limitation of the 4th amendment is still largely unaltered. But the protections have now been extended to digital devices only at border searches. The article doesn't go into it…
[deleted]
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fourth amendment just says searches have to be reasonable, not that they have to be done pursuant to a warrant. What counts as "reasonable" is very much not clear unless you look beyond the text. There's no evidence, for instance, that the fourth amendment was meant to prevent customs checks at the border. Inside the US, customs checks would be unreasonable searches, but at the border they have always been legal.…
Is a customs check reasonable without probable cause? I understand the pragmatic argument, but not the implicit presumption that an upstanding citizen would come home with contraband.
This court decision linked ends up concluding that CBP doesn't need a warrant, but they do need reasonable suspicion- a much lower standard- before performing a search. More than no suspicion, which is what CBP etc were claiming.