7 ms·

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

314 points by Cbasedlifeform 9y ago

outoftacos 9y ago
I haven't traveled abroad in a couple years, so I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I would be unable to contain my laughter if some CBP cop asked me to unlock my phone or laptop. Is this something that actually happens nowadays? Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense?
- tehlike 9y ago
  You have no idea. Travel to usa from turkey, and im not kidding, you need to go through around 6 id checks and luggage checks even for us citizens.
- schoen 9y ago
  See ¶ 38 and ¶¶ 47-49 of the complaint: https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad-v-duke-complaint https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad-v-duke-complaint
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  I, and almost anyone else, would consent to it for the sake of getting on the flight. Yeah, I don't like it either. It doesn't happen a lot, but when it does I imagine these outcomes: 1) Handover unlocked device, let CBP knuckle-dragger browse through it, in front of me, until they're bored and they hand it back. Get on flight. This is the best case scenario. 2) Handover unlocked device, CPB knucke-dragger takes it to back room where he may or may not download all contents and store it, enabling NSA to play seven-degrees-of-keven-bacon, Osama-edition, forever. That's the worst scenario, but very unlikely that anything comes of that. 3) Laugh at CBP knuckle-dragger, keep phone locked, miss flight, go to airport detention for an indeterminate amount of time until I give in and handover unlocked phone, be subject to scrutiny and "commentary" from CBP official, and maybe, get put on a list somewhere which will cause this to happen every time I fly.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    If you are a US citizen entering the US (don't try this if you're a green card holder or a visitor), then in the case of (3), they can't hold you indefinitely, although they can hold your phone indefinitely. This has never happened to me, and it probably never will, but if it does my plan is to refuse to unlock the phone and wait it out.
    - tonyztan 9y ago
      Exactly. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol can't detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime and trying them in court.
    - crispyambulance 9y ago
      I used the term "indefinitely" too loosely. I should have said "far longer than most people are willing tolerate for the sake of making a point." But OK, staying locked is a fine thing to do but most people would want to get on with their lives.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Is this something that actually happens nowadays? Yes, I personally know someone this has happened to. Also resulted in my own personal name/address/other info (amongst that of many others) also being demanded and hence provided to the government. > Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense? What would you do if you weren't a citizen and had a family to come back home to? Just be okay with being denied entry?
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense? Because the government has more guns than you do. The detailed legal answer is far more complicated than that, but it simplifies readily.
takeda 9y ago
outofatacos wrote: > I haven't traveled abroad in a couple years, so I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I would be unable to contain my laughter if some CBP cop asked me to unlock my phone or laptop. Is this something that actually happens nowadays? Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense? For some reason this comment is dead and it is a valid question IMO. For people who don't know, if you don't have a citizenship they actually might deny your entry if you won't cooperate. If you do, they can't refuse you entering the US, but they can confiscate your electronics. Doesn't seem right, that's why EFF and ACLU is suing.
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  > confiscate Steal. Confiscation without a warrant is theft. With a warrant they may be able to search, but failing to return within 48 hours is also theft. Alas, the government steals so much in so many different ways, and runs schools indoctrinating children in "patriotism" that its hard for people to see these things anymore.
makecheck 9y ago
Airport searches should be limited to what might cause a transportation security issue. Nothing on a mobile device qualifies, especially since in-flight wifi provides a way to download anything to the device in flight that is not present when checked at Security. Regular border searches should have no right to look at devices at all, since there is no plane or train to endanger and there are even more ways to beam over data after you cross the physical border. The entire thing just stinks of intimidation tactics, subjecting people to personal invasions with, yet again, no measurable improvement to actual security.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  For general TSA searches, you are correct, but border security is not about ensuring the safe transportation of the person crossing the border, so I am not sure how your framework makes sense.
  - alreadyhere 9y ago
    Surely the passport is a sufficient signal. Chances are if you have a fake one, you aren't likely to keep incriminating data on your phne, like your actual facebook profile.
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  Your second paragraph works if you insert pretty much any word instead of devices, including drugs or gold bullion. Which is a consistent position, but one that needs the backing of much more than a paragraph.
robin_reala 9y ago
But only for people who are US citizens, or at least permanent residents. It’s not making visiting the US any more appealing to the rest of the world.
- tehlike 9y ago
  That was not the point though. I am a permanent resident, and when i was on visa i was constantly sent through secondary inspection. I had to get a redress code to fix some of these issues, but hey, it was a price i had to pay. That is how i think about it. Now, us is working on programs to enable expedited travel like global entry, or nexus, and more people are eligible for it (like indians). While it is really hard to see how phones can be dangerous in this day an age of internet, but still...
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  If they can’t establish a better situation for US citizens, there’s no way they could ever generalize it. Seems like a sound tactic on the ACLU/EFFs part to me.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    Indeed. But he's right to point that out.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Well, tbh it wasn't all that appealing even without these ridiculous rules. I used to travel there several times per year, haven't been back in over a decade now. There is a lot more than just these searches from the point of view of an international business traveler or tourist.
  - bkeroack 9y ago
    We had Islamist terrorists literally fly jetliners into buildings and slaughter thousands. Sorry to inconvenience your vacation a bit.
jordigh 9y ago
Can someone offer a simple explanation of why the EFF and ACLU might succeed? I remember seeing big signs at US border crossings that said YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS in big allcaps, and I think the law is mostly on their side. Those signs are probably still there.
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  The plaintiffs are mostly US citizens, who (in theory) have rights the government is supposed to respect even if they are far from US territory.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  What law says they have no rights? That seems to supercede the constitution, which can't be done. Constitution needs to be interpreted in this case.
  - jordigh 9y ago
    The argument I've heard is that the constitution only applies to people who are in the US and her citizens. At a border crossing you're not in the US, and if you're not a US citizen, then I think you literally have no rights.
    - rothbardrand 9y ago
      I've seen that argument too, but it is false. There are no clauses in the constitution and particularly the bill of rights that limit rights to only US citizens on US soil. (other than restricting that the presidency be held by a citizen.) The constitution is a document that granted very limited power to the federal government and very broad rights to the citizens. All of what we have now-- from the TSA to the the NSA to DOE is unconstitutional.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      That argument is wrong, the constitution not only applies to US citizens while they are out of the US, but it also applies to people who aren't US citizens. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
adventist 9y ago
It would seem to me that the Federal Government is in charge of the border, and that until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights. There are many things that need to get checked at the border. Maybe they could just have a judge there to stamp each request as it goes through.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I have my whole life on my phone and laptop. Most of the details and particularly papers, as stated in the 4th, of my life are contained there. I also need my devices to function and keep up like a normal person in 2017, and to keep a job. So if I need to leave the country and come back, and must bring them, I just forfeited my expectation of privacy guaranteed by the bill of rights?
  - dsp1234 9y ago
    I should no longer have any expectation of privacy The above poster suggests even worse. "until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights.". They suggest you have no constitutional rights outside of the US border. Forget your cell phone, this would imply that black bag operations are completely legal as long as the US citizen is outside of US borders at the time.
    - b3lvedere 9y ago
      About time there is a system where you can make a super cool backup of your entire smartphone and laptop on a remote system, then completely wipe these devices and restore it when you are safe from the border officers. icloud total backup or something :) "Sure officer, i'll unlock my phone and my laptop. There's absolutely nothing on it."
      - yahna 9y ago
        What do you have to hide?
ScottBurson 9y ago
The distinction I would suggest is that CBP should have the power to search the effects of entering travelers looking for physical contraband; so, for instance, to examine a laptop and cell phone to make sure they're not fakes full of cocaine or fentanyl or something. They should have no jurisdiction over information. They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! The idea that the CBP can make a meaningful difference to the security of this country by searching the informational effects of .1% of incoming travelers, when there's I-don't-know-how-many gigabits/sec of connectivity to other countries that anyone in the US can use by firing up their smartphone, is ludicrous on its face. The idea that they can accurately select the .1% of travelers that might be carrying evidence of a crime just by looking at them is equally ludicrous.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  The proposed "Protecting Data at the Border Act" makes the distinction between physical vs. digital examination that you mention. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Aha, so it does! The corresponding House bill is HR 1899.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  >They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! I believe the NSA already does this or it is within their 'jurisdiction'.
  - alreadyhere 9y ago
    Yea, but the NSA doesn't man the borders, and nothing gives them the right to do that (as of now).
dang 9y ago
Url changed from https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/09/electronic-frontier-foundation-aclu-sue-warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-us-border.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/09/electronic-frontier-..., which points to this.
aey 9y ago
Donate to the eff! They will send you an awesome hoodie
Joking_Phantom 9y ago
Does anyone know of a case where a search of electronic material beyond physical inspection actually resulted in any illegal materials? I don't doubt that our current body of legislation and judicial precedents make this practice legal, but I honestly can't see this policy actually doing anything. The classic case of illegal electronic information would be child pornography - but who would be stupid enough to bring it with them to the border for consumption or for trafficking, when the Internet exists? If they were to bring it to the border, what's to stop them from encrypting it not divulging the key? Beyond C.P., I can imagine certain trade secrets being illegal, like Samuel Slater back in the day. But that was to the benefit of America, and the British were right to suspect him due to his position giving him the capability to leak information that was held secret by state laws. American analogues obviously enforce the unwanted disclosure of state secrets and such based on identities and institutions prior to crossing the border - which makes what the CBP are doing redundant at best. Terrorists do not need anything outside of this country to operate. We've seen domestic and foreign terrorists alike build their bombs with legal sources of information and material. IMO, what happened was a power hungry busy body official in the CBP spearheaded this policy. Just another case of crappy people in crappy politics, making crappy solutions to nonexistent problems. It is fortunate that the rest of humanity will be reasonable enough to revert such egregious and useless wastes of resources.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Top link, quite recent, thousands of results: http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/handful-of-refugees-caught-bringing-child-porn-across-ny-quebec-border/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/handful-of-refugees-caught...
  - Joking_Phantom 9y ago
    Thank you for the reply, but these are refugees crossing into Canada. Not American citizens entering the United States. I don't see thousands of results either. A quick google search revealed absolutely nothing fruitful - 3 articles about the refugees seeking asylum in Canada being deported after CP discovery, 1 American citizen charged with CP found in his residence, 1 American citizen charged by a Saskatchewan provincial court, and 1 former Border Patrol agent caught as part of a Texan initiative that counters crimes against children. Not a single example comes to mind of an American citizen entering or leaving with illegal electronic information. If these searches were actually doing anything useful, I'm sure an organized effort to promote its success would've been underway.
JudasGoat 9y ago
I only make around 20k and I donate $5 monthly to both the EFF and ACLU. I never notice it missing out of my account. Does anyone now of a third organization worthy of support. Not to brag, but I could probably swing $15 a month.
- KGIII 9y ago
  With ACLU, you can also donate to your local chapter. I'm also rather fond of Heifer International.
tmnvix 9y ago
I happened to catch a few minutes of one of those border/customs reality shows a couple of weeks ago. A young German couple were trying to enter the US from Canada as tourists. They had very little in the way of funds and claimed that they planned on sleeping in their van while travelling. The official at the border asked them if they planned on working. They both said "no". He asked them again but warned them that their computers and phones had been searched. Again they said "no". The official then showed them correspondence that showed they were expected at a farm were they were expected to work as wwoofers. They were denied entry. Personally I don't agree that their correspondence should have been checked in the first case but I can see that this is an example of how this type of privacy invasion might be argued for by government.

I haven't traveled abroad in a couple years, so I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I would be unable to contain my laughter if some CBP cop asked me to unlock my phone or laptop. Is this something that actually happens nowadays? Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense?

tehlike 9y ago
You have no idea. Travel to usa from turkey, and im not kidding, you need to go through around 6 id checks and luggage checks even for us citizens.
schoen 9y ago
See ¶ 38 and ¶¶ 47-49 of the complaint: https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad-v-duke-complaint https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad-v-duke-complaint
crispyambulance 9y ago
I, and almost anyone else, would consent to it for the sake of getting on the flight. Yeah, I don't like it either. It doesn't happen a lot, but when it does I imagine these outcomes: 1) Handover unlocked device, let CBP knuckle-dragger browse through it, in front of me, until they're bored and they hand it back. Get on flight. This is the best case scenario. 2) Handover unlocked device, CPB knucke-dragger takes it to back room where he may or may not download all contents and store it, enabling NSA to play seven-degrees-of-keven-bacon, Osama-edition, forever. That's the worst scenario, but very unlikely that anything comes of that. 3) Laugh at CBP knuckle-dragger, keep phone locked, miss flight, go to airport detention for an indeterminate amount of time until I give in and handover unlocked phone, be subject to scrutiny and "commentary" from CBP official, and maybe, get put on a list somewhere which will cause this to happen every time I fly.
- mikeash 9y ago
  If you are a US citizen entering the US (don't try this if you're a green card holder or a visitor), then in the case of (3), they can't hold you indefinitely, although they can hold your phone indefinitely. This has never happened to me, and it probably never will, but if it does my plan is to refuse to unlock the phone and wait it out.
  - tonyztan 9y ago
    Exactly. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol can't detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime and trying them in court.
  - crispyambulance 9y ago
    I used the term "indefinitely" too loosely. I should have said "far longer than most people are willing tolerate for the sake of making a point." But OK, staying locked is a fine thing to do but most people would want to get on with their lives.
throwaway613834 9y ago
> Is this something that actually happens nowadays? Yes, I personally know someone this has happened to. Also resulted in my own personal name/address/other info (amongst that of many others) also being demanded and hence provided to the government. > Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense? What would you do if you weren't a citizen and had a family to come back home to? Just be okay with being denied entry?
CamperBob2 9y ago
Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense? Because the government has more guns than you do. The detailed legal answer is far more complicated than that, but it simplifies readily.

takeda 9y ago

outofatacos wrote: > I haven't traveled abroad in a couple years, so I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I would be unable to contain my laughter if some CBP cop asked me to unlock my phone or laptop. Is this something that actually happens nowadays? Why on earth would anyone ever consent to this nonsense? For some reason this comment is dead and it is a valid question IMO. For people who don't know, if you don't have a citizenship they actually might deny your entry if you won't cooperate. If you do, they can't refuse you entering the US, but they can confiscate your electronics. Doesn't seem right, that's why EFF and ACLU is suing.

rothbardrand 9y ago
> confiscate Steal. Confiscation without a warrant is theft. With a warrant they may be able to search, but failing to return within 48 hours is also theft. Alas, the government steals so much in so many different ways, and runs schools indoctrinating children in "patriotism" that its hard for people to see these things anymore.

makecheck 9y ago

Airport searches should be limited to what might cause a transportation security issue. Nothing on a mobile device qualifies, especially since in-flight wifi provides a way to download anything to the device in flight that is not present when checked at Security. Regular border searches should have no right to look at devices at all, since there is no plane or train to endanger and there are even more ways to beam over data after you cross the physical border. The entire thing just stinks of intimidation tactics, subjecting people to personal invasions with, yet again, no measurable improvement to actual security.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
For general TSA searches, you are correct, but border security is not about ensuring the safe transportation of the person crossing the border, so I am not sure how your framework makes sense.
- alreadyhere 9y ago
  Surely the passport is a sufficient signal. Chances are if you have a fake one, you aren't likely to keep incriminating data on your phne, like your actual facebook profile.
johncolanduoni 9y ago
Your second paragraph works if you insert pretty much any word instead of devices, including drugs or gold bullion. Which is a consistent position, but one that needs the backing of much more than a paragraph.

robin_reala 9y ago

But only for people who are US citizens, or at least permanent residents. It’s not making visiting the US any more appealing to the rest of the world.

tehlike 9y ago
That was not the point though. I am a permanent resident, and when i was on visa i was constantly sent through secondary inspection. I had to get a redress code to fix some of these issues, but hey, it was a price i had to pay. That is how i think about it. Now, us is working on programs to enable expedited travel like global entry, or nexus, and more people are eligible for it (like indians). While it is really hard to see how phones can be dangerous in this day an age of internet, but still...
johncolanduoni 9y ago
If they can’t establish a better situation for US citizens, there’s no way they could ever generalize it. Seems like a sound tactic on the ACLU/EFFs part to me.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Indeed. But he's right to point that out.
jacquesm 9y ago
Well, tbh it wasn't all that appealing even without these ridiculous rules. I used to travel there several times per year, haven't been back in over a decade now. There is a lot more than just these searches from the point of view of an international business traveler or tourist.
- bkeroack 9y ago
  We had Islamist terrorists literally fly jetliners into buildings and slaughter thousands. Sorry to inconvenience your vacation a bit.

jordigh 9y ago

Can someone offer a simple explanation of why the EFF and ACLU might succeed? I remember seeing big signs at US border crossings that said YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS in big allcaps, and I think the law is mostly on their side. Those signs are probably still there.

johncolanduoni 9y ago
The plaintiffs are mostly US citizens, who (in theory) have rights the government is supposed to respect even if they are far from US territory.
freeone3000 9y ago
What law says they have no rights? That seems to supercede the constitution, which can't be done. Constitution needs to be interpreted in this case.
- jordigh 9y ago
  The argument I've heard is that the constitution only applies to people who are in the US and her citizens. At a border crossing you're not in the US, and if you're not a US citizen, then I think you literally have no rights.
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    I've seen that argument too, but it is false. There are no clauses in the constitution and particularly the bill of rights that limit rights to only US citizens on US soil. (other than restricting that the presidency be held by a citizen.) The constitution is a document that granted very limited power to the federal government and very broad rights to the citizens. All of what we have now-- from the TSA to the the NSA to DOE is unconstitutional.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    That argument is wrong, the constitution not only applies to US citizens while they are out of the US, but it also applies to people who aren't US citizens. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

adventist 9y ago

It would seem to me that the Federal Government is in charge of the border, and that until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights. There are many things that need to get checked at the border. Maybe they could just have a judge there to stamp each request as it goes through.

wallace_f 9y ago
I have my whole life on my phone and laptop. Most of the details and particularly papers, as stated in the 4th, of my life are contained there. I also need my devices to function and keep up like a normal person in 2017, and to keep a job. So if I need to leave the country and come back, and must bring them, I just forfeited my expectation of privacy guaranteed by the bill of rights?
- dsp1234 9y ago
  I should no longer have any expectation of privacy The above poster suggests even worse. "until you are actually in the United States, you have no reasonable expectation of the Bill of Rights.". They suggest you have no constitutional rights outside of the US border. Forget your cell phone, this would imply that black bag operations are completely legal as long as the US citizen is outside of US borders at the time.
  - b3lvedere 9y ago
    About time there is a system where you can make a super cool backup of your entire smartphone and laptop on a remote system, then completely wipe these devices and restore it when you are safe from the border officers. icloud total backup or something :) "Sure officer, i'll unlock my phone and my laptop. There's absolutely nothing on it."
    - yahna 9y ago
      What do you have to hide?

ScottBurson 9y ago

The distinction I would suggest is that CBP should have the power to search the effects of entering travelers looking for physical contraband; so, for instance, to examine a laptop and cell phone to make sure they're not fakes full of cocaine or fentanyl or something. They should have no jurisdiction over information. They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! The idea that the CBP can make a meaningful difference to the security of this country by searching the informational effects of .1% of incoming travelers, when there's I-don't-know-how-many gigabits/sec of connectivity to other countries that anyone in the US can use by firing up their smartphone, is ludicrous on its face. The idea that they can accurately select the .1% of travelers that might be carrying evidence of a crime just by looking at them is equally ludicrous.

tonyztan 9y ago
The proposed "Protecting Data at the Border Act" makes the distinction between physical vs. digital examination that you mention. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s823/BILLS-115s823is.pdf
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Aha, so it does! The corresponding House bill is HR 1899.
24gttghh 9y ago
>They don't get to examine all the bits coming into the country over the Internet, and we certainly don't want to give them that power! I believe the NSA already does this or it is within their 'jurisdiction'.
- alreadyhere 9y ago
  Yea, but the NSA doesn't man the borders, and nothing gives them the right to do that (as of now).

dang 9y ago

Url changed from https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/09/electronic-frontier-foundation-aclu-sue-warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-us-border.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/09/electronic-frontier-..., which points to this.

aey 9y ago

Donate to the eff! They will send you an awesome hoodie

Joking_Phantom 9y ago

Does anyone know of a case where a search of electronic material beyond physical inspection actually resulted in any illegal materials? I don't doubt that our current body of legislation and judicial precedents make this practice legal, but I honestly can't see this policy actually doing anything. The classic case of illegal electronic information would be child pornography - but who would be stupid enough to bring it with them to the border for consumption or for trafficking, when the Internet exists? If they were to bring it to the border, what's to stop them from encrypting it not divulging the key? Beyond C.P., I can imagine certain trade secrets being illegal, like Samuel Slater back in the day. But that was to the benefit of America, and the British were right to suspect him due to his position giving him the capability to leak information that was held secret by state laws. American analogues obviously enforce the unwanted disclosure of state secrets and such based on identities and institutions prior to crossing the border - which makes what the CBP are doing redundant at best. Terrorists do not need anything outside of this country to operate. We've seen domestic and foreign terrorists alike build their bombs with legal sources of information and material. IMO, what happened was a power hungry busy body official in the CBP spearheaded this policy. Just another case of crappy people in crappy politics, making crappy solutions to nonexistent problems. It is fortunate that the rest of humanity will be reasonable enough to revert such egregious and useless wastes of resources.

KGIII 9y ago
Top link, quite recent, thousands of results: http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/handful-of-refugees-caught-bringing-child-porn-across-ny-quebec-border/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/handful-of-refugees-caught...
- Joking_Phantom 9y ago
  Thank you for the reply, but these are refugees crossing into Canada. Not American citizens entering the United States. I don't see thousands of results either. A quick google search revealed absolutely nothing fruitful - 3 articles about the refugees seeking asylum in Canada being deported after CP discovery, 1 American citizen charged with CP found in his residence, 1 American citizen charged by a Saskatchewan provincial court, and 1 former Border Patrol agent caught as part of a Texan initiative that counters crimes against children. Not a single example comes to mind of an American citizen entering or leaving with illegal electronic information. If these searches were actually doing anything useful, I'm sure an organized effort to promote its success would've been underway.

JudasGoat 9y ago

I only make around 20k and I donate $5 monthly to both the EFF and ACLU. I never notice it missing out of my account. Does anyone now of a third organization worthy of support. Not to brag, but I could probably swing $15 a month.

KGIII 9y ago
With ACLU, you can also donate to your local chapter. I'm also rather fond of Heifer International.

tmnvix 9y ago

I happened to catch a few minutes of one of those border/customs reality shows a couple of weeks ago. A young German couple were trying to enter the US from Canada as tourists. They had very little in the way of funds and claimed that they planned on sleeping in their van while travelling. The official at the border asked them if they planned on working. They both said "no". He asked them again but warned them that their computers and phones had been searched. Again they said "no". The official then showed them correspondence that showed they were expected at a farm were they were expected to work as wwoofers. They were denied entry. Personally I don't agree that their correspondence should have been checked in the first case but I can see that this is an example of how this type of privacy invasion might be argued for by government.