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

EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#101

Post by ionised »

abtinf wrote: post #76
natch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position. It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's worth making an exception to help keep you readable: I un-did my downvote of you because I hope that others who, out of innocent ignorance perhaps, currently share your position, will be able to read your comment (I don't want you to go to full invisibility) and…

It is unfortunate that your experiment of encouraging rebuttal didn't work out. When it comes to this issue, emotion and politics trump reason.

When it comes to this issue, emotion and politics trump reason.

Right. You're describing your own view there.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#102

Post by nunyabuizness »

natch wrote: post #43
abtinf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago, I considered starting regular donations to the EFF. Unfortunately, I did not realize they had taken pro position on state intervention and control of the Internet, a concept generally described with the orwellian phrase "net neutrality." This position directly contradicts much of the their advocacy that I wanted to support.

I am glad you commented, so that others could rebut your misguided position. It's not usually kosher to comment on voting here, but I think in this case it's worth making an exception to help keep you readable: I un-did my downvote of you because I hope that others who, out of innocent ignorance perhaps, currently share your position, will be able to read your comment (I don't want you to go to full invisibility) and…

> net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening

I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation.

I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#103

Post by gsnedders »

int_19h wrote: post #99
wallace_f wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Search at the border for the purposes of detecting contraband has been considered reasonable from the moment Constitution was in force. Is this really true, though? Would you be able to provide a sourced example of this -- Searching a person's personal effects and papers at the border, ideally in a case that went to the courts?

It is generally assumed to follow from the fact that the United States Customs Service was established back in 1789, and its duties, from the very beginning, involved dealing with contraband. I poked around a bit, and while the first SCOTUS decision addressing this head on seems to be from 1977, it goes into more detail: "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect…

This provides a justification for customs to carry out searches, but very few countries undertake customs checks on departing passengers.

What about searches at security, be it by the TSA or otherwise? They're obviously very different (you can always opt-out and travel by another means), but I suppose one can both argue that they're a) reasonable and b) justified by contractual means (i.e., a requirement to pass through security before boarding).

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#104

Post by Steeeve »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #96
ubernostrum wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, CBP recently ran a roadblock on Interstate 93 in New Hampshire, ostensibly to catch undocumented migrants, but the majority of arrests were of US citizens, and the majority of those US citizens were arrested for -- surprise! -- drugs found when they or their vehicles were searched: http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde... As the article notes, essentially the entire state of New Hamp…

You're right. The law has very little bearing on what law enforcement officers can and can't do. Any number of courts can rule that a particular LEO activity is unlawful, but it seems to have very little effect on their actions henceforth. In my experience, so long as the officers believe they were acting lawfully there are typically no repercussions. Occasionally one might get put on leave with full pay while an inv…

> I definitely believe there needs to be a third party to police operations. Some sort of service tasked with keeping police behaviour in check, present to support the rights of the citizenry. Law enforcement officers shouldn't be allowed out alone.

This is in place already in many jurisdictions. The review board is almost always populated with former police rather than community members, ostensibly because they have better insight as to the challenges officers face on a daily basis. This is one of the reasons the cop in LA went mental a few years ago - because he was out of favor politically, his review board experience went sideways, while many of his peers had a decidedly different outcome for more egregious offenses. (I can't get into specifics because I don't actually remember them in detail).

It is a common case that officers are disciplined and that discipline is rescinded by the review board rather than strengthened. You can almost sympathize - when police are instructed to lie and behave unethically on a regular basis, it's bs to fire them when they make the news for it. The guys on the street are stuck between a rock and a hard place - having to satisfy their superiors, but the requirements for doing so would get them fired by any civilian review board. For instance, the pattern of ticketing soccer mom's at the beginning of every school year under a quota system would cause all kinds of issues under civilian review. But it happens all over the place and even though it's illegal, the practice nor it's practitioners will ever face consequences for it.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#105

Post by Asooka »

ue_ wrote: post #72
iamatworknow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does anyone else have any tips/tricks/ideas here? The trick is to not worry about it so much. In fact, I'd say that worrying and looking nervous would make it more likely that you would be searched. I live on the US/Canadian border (on the US side) and go over probably 2 or 3 times per month. I regularly drive from New York state to Ottawa (going through Canadian customs), then fly into the US (through US customs) a…

You know, I have to say something about this: >I have only ever personally heard of one case of someone having their electronics searched, and the extent of the search was Canadian customs using the Windows search to look for files with "boy" or "girl" in the filename -- presumably looking for child porn. This is horrible - not beacuse of the child porn aspect, but because Canada has draconian laws (though so do Brit…

USA and Canada are democracies. The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken - fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones. Court adjourned.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#106

Post by azernik »

derefr wrote: post #63
azernik wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This would be in direct contravention of the Vienna Protocols [1] that define a diplomatic pouch and its protections. You are not allowed to stuff your personal shit in a diplomatic courier pouch, and any country openly and intentionally allowing the abuse of the Vienna Protocols for these purposes would be in very hot water internationally. Like, international-incident, embassies-expelled hot water. [1] Article…

It's still not clear to me that e.g. the Queen of England couldn't travel around with her shopping list in a diplomatic pouch. A country's government gets to decide for itself what is and isn't for its "official use", no? So if a country says your laptop contains materials intended for their official use, then it does . It's just a matter of you being important enough for them to be willing to make that claim on your…

And as soon as they get caught, the countries so offended against will call that (rightfully) a flagrant lie. The treaties were written specifically to prevent such a use of diplomatic privilege. That adjective "official" in the Convention is literally meaningless if a country is allowed to claim anything is "official", and trust me, treaty writers do not insert any words without a reason.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#107

Post by ue_ »

Asooka wrote: post #105
ue_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I have to say something about this: >I have only ever personally heard of one case of someone having their electronics searched, and the extent of the search was Canadian customs using the Windows search to look for files with "boy" or "girl" in the filename -- presumably looking for child porn. This is horrible - not beacuse of the child porn aspect, but because Canada has draconian laws (though so do Brit…

USA and Canada are democracies. The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken - fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones. Court adjourned.

>The people (majority of people (actually the people claiming to represent the majority)) have spoken

Really, have they? Is there a poll showing that? And does agreement on laws mean that the laws are therefore not draconian? I'm sure many in, for example, Saudi Arabia would think that homosexuality should be prohbited. Does this mean that it should be that way?

>fictional drawings of children are to be treated as crimeful as real ones

That's not what the law says.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#108

Post by InitialLastName »

wallace_f wrote: post #87
ENOTTY wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is that the Fourth Amendment isn't actually all that clear, and that it's up to judges, lawyers, politicians, and citizens to figure out how it applies in different situations.

Which part do you find to be unclear? It looks pretty clear to me. What if I asked about Guantanamo, the NSA, or wars without approval of congress? Are all of these failures of our Gov to observe our constitution issues of some kind of lack in clarity?

> Which part do you find to be unclear?

Fourth Amendment: > 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.

The word "unreasonable" in "unreasonable searches and seizures" introduces a full hectare of gray area.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#109

Post by rphlx »

ubernostrum wrote: post #85
wonderous wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct search and seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United States,[5] the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports).[1] [2] [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=693326075362777…

Meanwhile, CBP recently ran a roadblock on Interstate 93 in New Hampshire, ostensibly to catch undocumented migrants, but the majority of arrests were of US citizens, and the majority of those US citizens were arrested for -- surprise! -- drugs found when they or their vehicles were searched: http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde... As the article notes, essentially the entire state of New Hamp…

Their use of drug dogs is a critical factor that should be mentioned there.. once a car's flagged by a dog, there is probable cause for a further search federally and in most states. So for better or worse I believe their actions were consistent with current Federal laws and any resulting federal drug charges would be difficult to challenge as resulting from an illegal search.

AFAICT from that article, they did not attempt warrantless searches on cars (or individual US citizens) that were not flagged by the dogs.

Re: EFF, ACLU Sue Over Warrantless Phone, Laptop Searches at U.S. Border

#110

Post by basseq »

I hope this one goes to the Supreme Court, as that's the only place this will be resolved. Otherwise, U.S. Criminal Law is clear: searches and seizures at the border are exempt from requirements for warrants or probable cause.

Multiple circuit courts have upheld the Government's right to do this, and that this right extends to electronic files and information. Only the Ninth has disagreed (United States v. Cotterman).

Post reply on HN