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

271–280 of 617 posts

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

#271

Post by TurkishPoptart »

zackmorris wrote: post #203
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 ex…

Thank you for sharing this, as well as the link of Nielsen getting grilled by a Congressional hero. I'm inspired. More people need to see this.

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

#272

Post by dragonwriter »

vkou wrote: post #265
gamblor956 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Applying intermediate scrutiny to the federal ban on arms possession by unauthorized aliens, the court found the law to be reasonable. Since unauthorized aliens "often live largely outside the formal system" and are "harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity," the government may rationally limit their access to firearms. > Thus, the Seventh Circuit leaves Meza-Rodriguez with the right to bear arms,…

> What is the point of a theoretical right that can't be exercised in practice?

It is perhaps a more accurate description to say that Meza-Rodriquez is in the class of people to whom the right applies, but that the right allows restrictions based on conduct, including illegal presence.

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

#273

Post by gamblor956 »

miles wrote: post #245
BrainInAJar wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As Taniwha pointed out above[0]: > 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 [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21518813

Even if that's true, that simply means the search moves a few feet to US soil, where they stand on one side of the border and you stand on the other. And they don't have to let you in if you're not a US citizen or lawful resident.

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

#274

Post by pattrn »

garg wrote: post #50
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…

Your opinion is unpopular because it makes no sense and does not improve security. The attacker will simply recruit a "Yian" because that's your blind spot now.

In that case, the odds of a Yian being a terrorist would increase, thereby increasing the odds of a Yian getting searched. If we assume that the odds of being a terrorist varies based on demographics, then this would catch more terrorists than random searches.

It reminds me of the N-armed bandit problem: use random searches some small percentage of the time, and use a distribution based on prior samples to identify subsequent searches. (It's not exactly the same, but the same technique applies.)

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

#275

Post by interlocutor »

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.

This decision only covers electronic devices. All other items can still be searched without suspicion or warrant at the border, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

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

#276

Post by gamblor956 »

girvo wrote: post #197
jessaustin wrote: post #171

Earlier 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?

Back then, the "press" was the only method of communication other than actually talking to people. But the point was that the government couldn't infringe a method of communication.

EDIT: Note, for example, that the Federalist Papers that drove much of the discussion behind the policies in the Constitution were self-printed by Franklin, et al. Newspapers at that time were highly political and opinionated, like Fox News today, and did very little actual reporting of news. Journalists and "the press" didn't get conflated until much later.

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

#277

Post by alasdair_ »

michaelmrose wrote: post #257
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 individ…

>Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted.

It's not at all obvious. For example: it's "obvious" that the constitution applies to the United States. Before you pass through the border, you are in a place that is NOT the United States. It's definitely not obvious that the constitution applies to places outside the US.

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

#278

Post by mrandish »

dontbenebby wrote: post #181
kickopotomus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As with virtually all govt authority figures whose 'authoritah' gets constrained by pesky constitutional 'noise', they will adopt the minimal appearance of compliance that their dept lawyers estimate they can get away with. I wish I was kidding.

It's definitely a good ruling to have on the books but it could very well just end up being a checkbox matter to have a pretense of "suspicion" (ie "this person appeared nervous").

Depending on the jurisdiction of this district court the DHS might even decide that it doesn't apply outside that jurisdiction until a higher court rules on it.

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

#279

Post by gamblor956 »

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…

Good news: none of the Bill of Rights are limited to citizens, and most are indeed broadly worded so that citizenship status is not a threshold requirement for the right to apply.
Post reply on HN