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

321–330 of 617 posts

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

#321

Post by devicetray0 »

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…

> 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.

This itself is actually the fallacy. Take a look at this:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038...

> Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen. After he was released, he filed a complaint. Last year, a district judge in New York awarded him $82,500 in damages, citing "regrettable failures of the government."

> On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.

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

#323

Post by Pyxl101 »

hannasanarion wrote: post #293
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)

Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…

> In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in to harbor, including the effects of their passengers, to enforce importation laws

Yes, but electronic devices can't digitally contain physical substances that might be subject to customs laws. It's not comparable. It's probably still today reasonable to search ships in the harbor and passengers for physical substances (like banned animals or fruits/vegetables), but it's not obvious to me how searching electronic devices achieves any reasonable objective related to customs law.

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

#324

Post by mancerayder »

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.

You might argue journalists (amongst others) might be more subject to retaliatory harassment than ordinary people.

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

#325

Post by ineedasername »

hannasanarion wrote: post #293
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)

Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…

Your examples of searching cargo aren't comparable though. The closest analog version to phone or computer searches would probably be searching an individual's private papers, personal journal, and list of contacts.

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

#326

Post by throwaway3563 »

hannasanarion wrote: post #293
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)

Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…

Not really the same thing. The same thing would be customs taking your phone apart with a screwdriver to search it’s physical contents.

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

#327

Post by ineedasername »

User23 wrote: post #285
Spooky23 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The well regulated militia is subject to regulation.

And every citizen and immigrant who intends to become a citizen man (and women in the Guard) at least 17 years of age and under 45 is a member of the Militia of the United States[1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

But for the purpose of militia in this context and therefore that of the 2nd amendment, the power of Congress over the militia is deemed "unlimited" [0]. As such, regulating it's use of arms would be well within it's remit.

[0] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-mili...

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

#328

Post by gamblor956 »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #305
gamblor956 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't being subject to search apply regardless of citizenship status?

No, if you're a citizen or lawful resident they have to let you in...eventually. Courts have ruled that they can hold you at the border for a few hours.

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

#329

Post by briandear »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #323
hannasanarion wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…

> In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in to harbor, including the effects of their passengers, to enforce importation laws Yes, but electronic devices can't digitally contain physical substances that might be subject to customs laws. It's not comparable. It's probably still today reasonable to search ships in the harbor and passengers for physical substances (like banned animal…

> Yes, but electronic devices can't digitally contain physical substances that might be subject to customs laws

Child porn is prohibited to be imported in any form, including digital. Customs isn’t about just physical objects.

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

#330

Post by briandear »

Spooky23 wrote: post #315
droithomme wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In colonial era English language, well regulated refers to something being properly functioning, ie in working order. It has nothing to do with regulations.

That’s absurd. Regulate has had a pretty clear meaning from its Latin origins. (Regula: to rule) Regulate is a form that appeared in Middle English that means “to control by rules”. I’m all for guns and appreciating the inscrutable nature of the 2nd amendment. But words mean things.

If you look at the founders’ documents and writings on the subject, “well regulated” isn’t about “regulations,” but about the “proper functioning thereof, as the parent said. There is plenty written about the right to bear arms from that time period by those that wrote the constitution. Words do mean things and those meanings can’t be interpreted without historical context. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government — it’s illogical that the regulation by a potential tyrannical government was intended by the Constitution; it’s the fox regulating the henhouse.
Post reply on HN