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

231–240 of 617 posts

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

#231

Post by JaRail »

strictnein wrote: post #60
papito wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are cases of doing this to U.S. Citizens, in some cases, quite disturbingly, to journalists .

It's no more or less disturbing for journalists to be subjected to this. They're not some special class of protected people.

It's a lot more disturbing if other parts of the government can arbitrarily target people they don't like for harassment. There's a big difference between 10 random searches and 10 targeted searches. Journalists aren't that common. If there's a large cluster of journalists getting targeted in a close period of time, it's worth figuring out why that's happening.

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

#232

Post by MaulingMonkey »

arcticbull wrote: post #168
jakeogh wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd appreciate a summary of this 23 minute long audio recording ;)

It's a summary of the court's opinion and reasoning (and dissenting opinion) in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller supreme court case, as to the constitutionality of DC's handgun restrictions at the time, in light of the second amendment. Worth a listen if you've any interest in how we regulate gun ownership, IMO.

If you use javascriptlets like:

    javascript:document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].playbackRate=2
This actually works in chrome, to speed up the audio playback, if you're short on time.

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

#233

Post by velosol »

bureaucrat wrote: post #116
mark-r wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately there is still parallel construction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Honest question: can illegally obtained evidence be used to get a search warrant?

Yes. If the magistrate fails to notice the illegal-ness of the evidence and gives the warrant, it is valid nonetheless.

If the illegal-ness later comes to light would a court consider evidence from the 'valid' warrant tainted? Always, sometimes?

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

#235

Post by knodi123 »

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…

> Are you saying terrorists happen at equal frequencies across all demographics?

Are you aware that the person I replied to described a scenario where 100% of attacks came from one group, and 0% from the rest? He was just as wrong as the straw man of me that you constructed.

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

I bet I know why it strikes you that way. And it's not because of actual real-world statistics based on what's actually happening in America. Check the numbers on terror attacks in the US- you might be surprised at the Muslim / Christian breakdown.

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

Yes, they have. And if we start waving couples with children through the security line, then yes, we will see it much more.

> how many terrorist attacks are carried out by women vs. men?

Yes. And if that's how we decide to bias our security, then we'll see a lot more women terrorists.

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

#236

Post by MaulingMonkey »

randyrand wrote: post #226
jakeogh wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When was this?

I assume shortly after the supreme court vote on this case - June 26th, 2008. Perhaps the same day.

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

#237

Post by jeffdavis »

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)

Your reasoning may be correct, but not quite so obvious to courts. For instance, foreigners' right to keep and bare arms is routinely violated, even though they are people.

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

#238

Post by [deleted] »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #215
girvo wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

[deleted]

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

#239

Post by kelnos »

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?

It depends on state/city law. In San Francisco, for example, non-citizens who have school-age kids can vote in local school board elections (as of last year).

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

#240

Post by flukus »

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

But customers officers can't force you to comply can they? So whether or not they have any authority is irrelevant. Of course if you choose not comply you have to turn around.
Post reply on HN