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

111–120 of 122 posts

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

#111

Post by iamatworknow »

Canada wrote: post #80
iamatworknow wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To perhaps back my point up even further, look at the link that the EFF posted showing CBP's data: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele... 189,594,422 people processed at the US border between October 2016 and March 2017 with 14,993 electronics searches. 0.008% of people processed had electronics searched.

That would mean that in all of the ports of entry to the United States only 82 phones per day were searched. That's absolutely ridiculous. There are approximately that many international airports. Just airports. Nevermind the enormous flow of land traffic with Canada and Mexico or all sea traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_airports... CBP is claiming that they searched, on average, less than…

What evidence do you have that they're trying to mislead us other than "governments and law enforcement are bad so they're probably lying"?

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

#112

Post by iamatworknow »

dawnerd wrote: post #65
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…

Going into Canada as a US citizen is usually super easy anyways. Last few times I've been across it was maybe two questions, that's it.

It's always been easy for me, too. I recently got a Nexus card which makes it so I don't even have to talk to a real person when arriving in Canada (at least via air). Literally just two questions in a kiosk and hand someone a receipt. Of course that means the governments of Canada and the US did a background check and recorded my fingerprints and retinas, but I'm fine with that, personally.

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

#113

Post by daveFNbuck »

Steeeve wrote: post #104
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps a board empowered to review how officers are instructed would be better able to fix things.

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

#114

Post by ubernostrum »

rphlx wrote: post #109
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…

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 a…

Regardless of legal precedent, dogs are known to be a way to manufacture probable cause -- if the officer wants to search, they can find a way to make the dog "alert", or claim that it did.

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

#115

Post by Natanael_L »

nunyabuizness wrote: post #102
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…

> 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…

Unless you can guarantee everybody will have access to multiple ISP:s (effectively impossible unless the backbone owners for your area offers open access to their network), net neutrality is pretty much necessary to guarantee that people can communicate freely.

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

#116

Post by jetti »

adekok wrote: post #41
jetti wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"possibly even portals to HIPAA/other PII data of a more commercial nature)." You bring up a good point about HIPAA. I work in health care and we are allowed to keep a work email client on our phone provided that we keep control of our phone at all time (to keep PHI/HIPAA info safe). A border agent searching through my phone could be considered a HIPAA violation and would have to be reported. Not sure if anything wou…

One interpretation is that you're responsible for someone else breaking the law. If it's a violation, then the border guard committed the violation. Another interpretation is that you cannot possible obey the law. If the border guard has the legal right to demand access to the HIPAA protected data, and you can't legally give him access... then the law enforcement officials are forcing you to break the law . With no p…

"One interpretation is that you're responsible for someone else breaking the law. If it's a violation, then the border guard committed the violation."

The problem with that is that they aren't a covered entity and thus shouldn't have access to the data. Because they aren't a covered entity HIPAA rules do not apply to them.

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

#117

Post by literallycancer »

nunyabuizness wrote: post #102
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…

> 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…

You don't have regulation forcing companies to share infrastructure with competitors in the US? Like the electrical grid or water pipes?

Building things from scratch to compete with an established competitor at that scale is nearly impossible, you'd never see any new players entering the market if they had to build a new grid.

Why is net neutrality different?

>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.

You'd have to break up the oligopolies first, right?

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

#118

Post by nucleardog »

Iv wrote: post #66
ironix wrote: post #38

I'm going on a trip to Canada within the next month, from the US, as a US citizen. I want to be let into Canada without issue, so am taking a burner smartphone connected to a non-critical gmail account that is plausibly-maybe my "real" personal one. But not really. The maximum threat to me is detention, or more likely, refused entry. If I am asked to unlock the device, I will. Crossing back into the US, I am less con…

My solution has been to not go to the US, but that is not always doable. An interesting solution is to give something else to the border to worry about. Something perfectly legal but that would focus their attention. Like a perfectly registered and legally transported gun. Or some flour in plastic bags. Or a bottle of whiskey.

As a guy that's had my phone searched by customs a dozen times now, been put in windowless rooms while my car was tossed, held for four hours in the same room as my car while they pulled panels off, etc...

I had a lot fewer issues crossing the border once I stopped being so organized.

When I checked in for my flight I didn't have my passport itself on me, just the number. The airline I was using asked for an expiration date. I remembered the month and year but not the day... So I just picked a day. When I cleared customs, the guy was so busy correcting the expiration date on the computer that he wasn't even listening to my answer to his questions.

On the way back, I was switching airlines, and the originating airline was unable to print me a boarding pass for the flight they'd put me on. When I got to customs and they asked for paperwork, they also asked for my boarding pass for my final flight. When I didn't have one, they sent me to get one from the airline and then literally waved me through when I came back.

Once I noticed this, I started to think back... The least hassle I've had clearing security was when I did dumb things like leave a lighter in my pocket when I went to the airport. As soon as they found the lighter, they just took it away and admonished me and sent me on my way.

For the most part, if you haven't given them a reason to be suspicious, once they find something it seems they stop looking.

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

#119

Post by int_19h »

gsnedders wrote: post #103
int_19h wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thro…

TSA searches for air travellers are not done under the border search exception. They instead claim something called "administrative exception". It's a much more tenuous construct: it's basically saying that the search is reasonable, because "the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack" - which is a valid and important public interest - and because the means used are the least intrusive that are necessary to secure that interest (are you laughing already?).

Here's some more on this. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16...

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

#120

Post by rphlx »

ubernostrum wrote: post #114
rphlx wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Regardless of legal precedent, dogs are known to be a way to manufacture probable cause -- if the officer wants to search, they can find a way to make the dog "alert", or claim that it did.

That's certainly true and I do wish they would move to a non-animal-based sensor to reduce that vuln.
Post reply on HN