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

251–260 of 617 posts

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

#251

Post by Taniwha »

lonelappde wrote: post #243
JaRail wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the entry point. If I go through US customs in the Toronto airport, it's on Canadian soil. If someone there is having an issue with the process, they can withdraw their entry request and leave. That's perfectly fine and they shouldn't be punished for it. You don't have that option if you use a land crossing as you're physically inside the US.

Why would you be in US customs in a Canadian airport? I didn't know that exits.

Many US airports, especially away from the coasts, don't have any immigration/customs facilities, instead flights from Canada to the US go thru US customs in Canada (make sure you get to that flight early) since it's cheaper to put US facilities in a relatively smaller number of Canadian Airports

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

#252

Post by jeffdavis »

chmod775 wrote: post #244
jeffdavis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> foreigners' right to keep and bare arms is routinely violated Their rights are violated by courts?

Their rights are violated by others and not upheld by the courts.

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

#253

Post by Taniwha »

paulddraper wrote: post #250
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.

To be fair, these searches were prior to entering the United States. In the United States, such an act would clearly be against the 4th Amendment. It was less clear here.

But the searches are being done by agents of the government, the constitution limits what the government can do

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

#254

Post by abtinf »

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.

There are many obvious cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. All it takes is a pig headed state or federal attorney general who insists on trying to uphold oppressive laws.

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

#255

Post by sneak »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #65

There is hope for the US, hard to believe with the current state of affairs.

They let the border pigs keep all of the illegally and coercively stolen private information from the thousands or millions of phones they've already imaged (under the basis of "it was believed to be legal at the time"), so not really.

Third-party doctrine lets them silently access your emails and IMs and texts at rest, and Section 702 as well as creative definitions of "access" let them sniff them all in transit. Privacy from the fed snoops is 100% an illusion; the entire population is under continuous realtime monitoring.

This border search thing is an important but ultimately minor victory; total surveillance is the name of the game in the United States now, and likely will remain so until the country no longer exists.

Strong encryption is the only defense we have against mass surveillance, but sadly most people don't care enough about their own privacy (much less that of others - the classic "What do you have to hide?") to demand it in communications products and services, so the majority of personal networked communications happens in ways that are extremely simple for the corrupt federal government to collect, analyze, and permanently store.

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

#257

Post by michaelmrose »

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.

Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. Which court it arrived in isn't proof positive of the complexity of the law. Its proof of how irrational and diseased our system of government is.

Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion? This is an intrusion into an individuals privacy worse than anything the framers could have imagined justified only a by a right to search that exists to discover contraband THINGS not contraband thoughts.

Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.

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

#258

Post by gamblor956 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #237
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)

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.

Courts have upheld the rights of foreigners (i.e., illegal immigrants) to bear arms. This does not mean that they get to bring them into the country.

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

#259

Post by dreamcompiler »

jessaustin wrote: post #196
dreamcompiler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. I was going to say "yes" but the Heller decision has made that less clear.

My understanding of Heller was that it expanded rather than contracted the rights of the people against the excessive regulation of the state? [EDIT:] great link, thanks!

This analysis is what I was referring to:

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_...

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

#260

Post by gamblor956 »

vkou wrote: post #249
chmod775 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> foreigners' right to keep and bare arms is routinely violated Their rights are violated by courts?

Many states ban non-citizens from gun ownership. The courts have explicitly, and implicitly supported this interpretation of the second amendment. It's pretty easy to make the case that nobody knows what the U.S. Constitution actually means.

Quite literally the opposite is true: https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citize...

Court upheld the right of an illegal alien to own a firearm.

Post reply on HN