Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#121

Post by ranger_danger »

maeil wrote: post #103
ranger_danger wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There is no reason to assume so.

They don't mention any probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant. There had to have been something like that for it to make it all the way to OP appearing in court after a strip search found nothing.

Even if there wasn't, at that point they could have went to court, the media, anything, but they chose to never mention it and just shrug it off while complaining online, while people keep telling stories like this and it's no wonder people scream ACAB if they let it happen to them. Not only did they shrug off the police, but the hospital charging them, and then admitted they did nothing about it, and let it destroy their credit.

Sorry if I still don't believe it.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#122

Post by skissane »

Retric wrote: post #25
qingcharles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS doesn't always make shitty decisions. Sometimes dozens of lower courts will all make a shitty decision and then it gets to SCOTUS and they somehow use their greater resources to produce a better decision contrary to everyone's expectations. IIRC pretty much 99% of state and fed courts had ruled against the warrant requirement for GPS tracking until it hit SCOTUS and they went the opposite direction (just): htt…

2012 was a very different court. Gorsuch, Neil M. April 10, 2017 Kavanaugh, Brett M. October 6, 2018 Barrett, Amy Coney October 27, 2020 Jackson, Ketanji Brown June 30, 2022

That 2012 decision was unanimous, including all the conservatives. Roberts, Thomas and Alito all held GPS tracking without a warrant to be unconstitutional, along with Scalia (now deceased).

If the exact same case came before the Court today, would it rule differently? I doubt. One must assume Roberts, Thomas and Alito would rule the same way. Ideologically, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are all less conservative than Thomas and Alito, more conservative than Roberts – which suggests if Roberts, Thomas and Alito are all ruling the same way, probably Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett would too. And Jackson is both a liberal, and has been seen to be defendant-friendly even when the other liberals wouldn't be (see when she joined all but of the conservatives in the recent J6 case, while Barrett joined the remaining liberals). So probably, that case would go the same way today as it did in 2012.

Now, this is a separate issue, so the outcome of that 2012 case isn't decisive in how this case would be decided (if it ever reaches SCOTUS). But it would be wrong to assume that SCOTUS becoming significantly more conservative is necessarily going to change the outcome.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#123

Post by southernplaces7 »

wasyl wrote: post #93
southernplaces7 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A continent where laws capable of sending you to prison for freely expressing certain opinions is your counter example to a lack of certain advanced individual rights in the U.S.

Can you clarify which laws and opinions you have in mind?

Many examples abound. Don't be lazy and do a google search. Granted, many of those opinions that create grounds for legal sanction in the EU are disagreeable ones, but that's how freedom of expression as a real right works, it applies to the shit you don't like or want to hear, not just socially condoned opinions.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#124

Post by dheera »

herbst wrote: post #64
dheera wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the most obscure fork of Android possible, learn the most obscure language in Africa and set your UI to that language, ...

They just have to change the language back to English What's the alternative? The guy paid $1000+ just to get there and spent 3+ hours at customs. Refusing is basically saying "ok I fly back home"

remove English from the OS

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#125

Post by dredmorbius »

kergonath wrote: post #55
chatmasta wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to enable CarPlay but only for Google Maps? It’s so annoying that it seems to be all or nothing.

It would not really make sense. CarPlay is just your phone using the car’s screen. How would you do that for one app and nothing else?

Oddly enough, there are screen-sharing and/or remote-display protocols which ... are limited to sharing screen-drawing properties and aren't wholesale data vacuums. X11 and remote desktop come particularly to mind.

Several of those can be limited to specific applications, e.g., by setting the $DISPLAY value (X11). For remote desktop that's a bit more challenging but can be managed to an extent using Group Policy settings under MS Windows:

https://serverfault.com/a/354165>

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#126

Post by dredmorbius »

RIMR wrote: post #22
mindslight wrote: post #12

So these criminals that have been performing the illegal searches. The next step is they'll be charged with false imprisonment, extortion, and conspiracy, right? Oh, okay then, how about at least for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law? Well then, what about monetary damages for the people whose data was copied, devices were stolen or could no longer be trusted, wasted time and missed flights, costs of…

You can't apply the law retroactively. The law, despite being unconstitutional, allowed this, so you can't go back and arrest people who weren't breaking the law at the time. What you can do is track back every arrest that resulted from one of these searches, and ask for all charges and convictions to be vacated/overturned because the evidence was collected in an unconstitutional way. I'm more interested in damage co…

You can't apply the law retroactively.

There are ... some exceptions. Pardons can be granted (presidential or gubernatorial) for those convicted of specific violations, or under procedures later discredited. This doesn't of itself provide the ability to prosecute bad cops / bad prosecutors, but does at least undo some of the damage.

E.g., President Biden has given broad pardons for marijuana possession under US and D.C. (administered by the Federal government) law:

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221230390/biden-pardons-clem...>

This doesn't include state convictions for drugs possession (the vast majority of such convictions) but does signal to states which direction the Federal government is leaning.

But your damage control is within reach.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#127

Post by dredmorbius »

stackskipton wrote: post #116
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Then your visa will be denied and case closed.

US citizens cannot be denied (re)entry to the US.

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r...>

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#128

Post by stackskipton »

dredmorbius wrote: post #127
stackskipton wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then your visa will be denied and case closed.

US citizens cannot be denied (re)entry to the US. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r... >

US Citizens don't have to fill out DS-160 either.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#129

Post by stackskipton »

OptionOfT wrote: post #52

Does this apply only to U.S. Citizens? Or does it apply to everybody? And if it does, is it reason to refuse someone? I.e. can they refuse an L1B visa holder entry because he/she doesn't allow them to search the phone?

>And if it does, is it reason to refuse someone? I.e. can they refuse an L1B visa holder entry because he/she doesn't allow them to search the phone?

Yes. Only green card holders (some limitations apply) and US Citizens have right to enter the United States. Everyone else can be denied entry by CBP and even if you have obtained a visa, CBP can cancel it.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#130

Post by dredmorbius »

gumby wrote: post #13
ceejayoz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS can absolutely decide differently when one of these gets there.

Since smart phones are explicitly mentioned in Article 4 along with bump stocks, it’s pretty clear how this SCOTUS would rule.

Either missing a negation or , but yes.
Post reply on HN