10 ms·

From the linked description of the plaintiff's accounts, a US citizen: > .. A few days later, while returning from a day trip to Canada, I was once again detai

From the linked description of the plaintiff's accounts, a US citizen: > .. A few days later, while returning from a day trip to Canada, I was once again detained and told to hand over my phone. When I refused, three agents used force against me. One agent grabbed my neck and began to choke me while another wrapped up my arms and legs. The third agent reached into my pants’ pocket and took my phone, all while I was in severe pain and fearing for my life. Agents once more took my phone out of my sight, only to later return it without any explanation for what they did with my phone. I had not heard this account before, and it's pretty shocking. I had assumed that while migrants/permanent-residents could be denied entry, US citizens could have their time-wasted/device-confiscated at worst. I didn't realize that the government had given itself the power to literally beat physical access to personal computing devices out of people without a warrant.

mulmen 9y ago
The United States government cannot grant itself power and it does not have the power to beat physical access to personal computing devices out of citizens without a warrant. That is why the EFF has filed suit.
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  To the contrary, it can and it apparently has. The question is whether that power can be taken away.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    No, that is not correct to my understanding of governmental power in the United States. The lawsuit argues that the government overstepped its bounds and exercised power that it does not possess. From the link, emphasis mine: "Our lawsuit, filed in September 2017 on behalf of 11 Americans whose devices were searched, takes direct aim at the illegal policies enforced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In our brief we explain that warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border violate the First and Fourth Amendments, and that our 11 clients have every right to bring this case." The EFF is filing suit because they believe the government has broken the law. If the government had not broken the law but the EFF desired to change the governments power then they would lobby congress.
    - Figs 9y ago
      While you're looking at it from a de jure perspective (i.e. power as granted from written law), blackbagboys's post is looking at it from a de facto perspective (i.e. power in the sense of whatever they can actually get away with doing).
      - schrodinger 9y ago
        The de jure perspective is still worthwhile to consider because although there are definitely frequently overreaches of power, you still have a reasonable chance of challenging such overreaches in our court system.
        lovich 9y ago
        Do you have a reasonable chance? It seems that unless you are already wealthy, or get a powerful entity to back you up like the EFF or Peter Thiel, that you have very little chance of even having your day in court.
        tehlike 9y ago
        This is why we have nonprofits like eff. Individual cases are one thing, but collective cases make it more powerful for defending rights.
        lovich 9y ago
        I understand that's why these non profits have spring up, but I don't think their existence means you have a reasonable chance in our legal system. They simply don't have the resources to help everyone
        tehlike 9y ago
        I know, it's a tough question. Ordinary citizens are unlikely to sue government individually. And i am aware EFF doesn't have infinite resources. I prefer them fighting at higher level than individual cases. Cases like encryption being unlawful etc are more important for democracy/freedom than my inconvenience at the border for example.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    It has the power, but does it have the right?
mirimir 9y ago
CBP etc agents are trained to believe that they have the right to inspect/search devices. Even though they arguably don't. And so they will use force when there's resistance. Basically, it's rarely prudent to resist, given prevalent escalation-of-force policy to maintain control.
castle-bravo 9y ago
What happened to the 4th amendment?
- kelnos 9y ago
  Some constitutional protections only seem to exist when it's in the government's best interests, not the people's.
  - schrodinger 9y ago
    I think it's worth remembering that we the people have a lot of power over fighting for these protections, and in many ways we've gained power over the government in the history of our nation. In most respects, we have more freedoms than ever. The worst thing we can do is check out. The government is merely comprised of regular citizens elected or hired into power, and we have real power in shaping the future.
- drspacemonkey 9y ago
  That hasn't applied at or within 100 miles of a US border point of entry since 1953.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    So why does the EFF say that it does apply?
    - drspacemonkey 9y ago
      The government argues that searches at international borders is a "reasonable" search, thus the 4th amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" doesn't apply. The EFF disagrees. You can read their reasoning in the linked article.
      - da_chicken 9y ago
        Note that the EFF is only disputing searches of electronic devices. Nobody contests that physical border searches are reasonable.
TallGuyShort 9y ago
Generally speaking, law enforcement can do whatever they want as long as they can give their superiors a reasonable explanation of their side of the story and there isn't overwhelming evidence. Most people can't get the EFF to file lawsuits. Many jurisdictions can just charge you with resisting arrest, even if they can't file other charges that justify the arrest in the first place. As a far less dramatic example, this morning I had a TSA agent called me "stupid" because I left my toothpaste in my luggage, which I did because the last time I took it out of my suit case, I got yelled at for following the sign instead of heeding shouted instructions to the contrary. 10 feet away a different agent also called me "stupid" because I had removed the toothpaste from my luggage instead of the small Kindle which is obviously bigger than a small iPhone. I guess that's the new threshold for devices that must be removed. And what recourse do I have against verbal abuse over arbitrary judgments? Well if I want to keep flying without excessive effort, none. edit: I should add, generally speaking I've found American LEOs to be very polite and pleasant, ESPECIALLY compared to some other places I've lived. They have to deal with some truly shitty situations and I'm not anti-police at all - but systemically there is large potential for abuse and some places where that abuse is clearly happening.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  I’ve on 2 different occasions called the TSA complaint number due to unprofessional behavior by the agents. No idea what consequences there were for this to the agents but in both cases it was easy to do and I got follow up calls a few weeks later asking for more details.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >Generally speaking, law enforcement can do whatever they want as long as they can give their superiors The accountability lies with their superiors. They are brhaving the way their superiors want them to.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    People don't behave like you want them to. "What you want someone to do" is a story, and in my experience, people respond to incentives, not stories. If you want people to catch rats to curb the rat problem and you pay for rat tails, people end up lopping tails off rats and releasing them so they can breed and provide future income. It's not as simple as making sure that TSA management has the right desired behavior out of agents.
socceroos 9y ago
Why anyone in this circumstance, US citizen or not, deserves this treatment is beyond me.
bluntfang 9y ago
government is essentially a monopoly on violence.
- Cyphase 9y ago
  States[1], not governments[2]; an often unrecognized distinction. Also, while the layperson might not think about the state having a monopoly on violence, it's not exactly a secret or controversial thing. See the Wikipedia article on the topic[3] and this clip of Barack Obama[4][5]. That Obama clip is somewhat popular with libertarian types, accompanied with some form of, "See! Aha! He's admitting it!". As a "libertarian type" myself (though I try not to use that word to describe myself since it has a muddled meaning), my reaction is more along the lines of, "Well, yea." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s (not endorsing the source) [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s (more context)
  - Cyphase 9y ago
    Whoops, forgot to double newline the citations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s (not endorsing the source) [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s (more context)
- schrodinger 9y ago
  Of course it is. What's the alternative? The state, with due process and a mandatory trial by your peers, is really the only thing worth entrusting with a right to violence. It certainly isn't perfect, but at least we control it, and it works mostly in our collective best interest.
rectang 9y ago
First, they came for the migrants, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a migrant. …

mulmen 9y ago

The United States government cannot grant itself power and it does not have the power to beat physical access to personal computing devices out of citizens without a warrant. That is why the EFF has filed suit.

blackbagboys 9y ago
To the contrary, it can and it apparently has. The question is whether that power can be taken away.
- mulmen 9y ago
  No, that is not correct to my understanding of governmental power in the United States. The lawsuit argues that the government overstepped its bounds and exercised power that it does not possess. From the link, emphasis mine: "Our lawsuit, filed in September 2017 on behalf of 11 Americans whose devices were searched, takes direct aim at the illegal policies enforced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In our brief we explain that warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border violate the First and Fourth Amendments, and that our 11 clients have every right to bring this case." The EFF is filing suit because they believe the government has broken the law. If the government had not broken the law but the EFF desired to change the governments power then they would lobby congress.
  - Figs 9y ago
    While you're looking at it from a de jure perspective (i.e. power as granted from written law), blackbagboys's post is looking at it from a de facto perspective (i.e. power in the sense of whatever they can actually get away with doing).
    - schrodinger 9y ago
      The de jure perspective is still worthwhile to consider because although there are definitely frequently overreaches of power, you still have a reasonable chance of challenging such overreaches in our court system.
      - lovich 9y ago
        Do you have a reasonable chance? It seems that unless you are already wealthy, or get a powerful entity to back you up like the EFF or Peter Thiel, that you have very little chance of even having your day in court.
        tehlike 9y ago
        This is why we have nonprofits like eff. Individual cases are one thing, but collective cases make it more powerful for defending rights.
        lovich 9y ago
        I understand that's why these non profits have spring up, but I don't think their existence means you have a reasonable chance in our legal system. They simply don't have the resources to help everyone
        tehlike 9y ago
        I know, it's a tough question. Ordinary citizens are unlikely to sue government individually. And i am aware EFF doesn't have infinite resources. I prefer them fighting at higher level than individual cases. Cases like encryption being unlawful etc are more important for democracy/freedom than my inconvenience at the border for example.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  It has the power, but does it have the right?

mirimir 9y ago

CBP etc agents are trained to believe that they have the right to inspect/search devices. Even though they arguably don't. And so they will use force when there's resistance. Basically, it's rarely prudent to resist, given prevalent escalation-of-force policy to maintain control.

castle-bravo 9y ago

What happened to the 4th amendment?

kelnos 9y ago
Some constitutional protections only seem to exist when it's in the government's best interests, not the people's.
- schrodinger 9y ago
  I think it's worth remembering that we the people have a lot of power over fighting for these protections, and in many ways we've gained power over the government in the history of our nation. In most respects, we have more freedoms than ever. The worst thing we can do is check out. The government is merely comprised of regular citizens elected or hired into power, and we have real power in shaping the future.
drspacemonkey 9y ago
That hasn't applied at or within 100 miles of a US border point of entry since 1953.
- ams6110 9y ago
  So why does the EFF say that it does apply?
  - drspacemonkey 9y ago
    The government argues that searches at international borders is a "reasonable" search, thus the 4th amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" doesn't apply. The EFF disagrees. You can read their reasoning in the linked article.
    - da_chicken 9y ago
      Note that the EFF is only disputing searches of electronic devices. Nobody contests that physical border searches are reasonable.

TallGuyShort 9y ago

Generally speaking, law enforcement can do whatever they want as long as they can give their superiors a reasonable explanation of their side of the story and there isn't overwhelming evidence. Most people can't get the EFF to file lawsuits. Many jurisdictions can just charge you with resisting arrest, even if they can't file other charges that justify the arrest in the first place. As a far less dramatic example, this morning I had a TSA agent called me "stupid" because I left my toothpaste in my luggage, which I did because the last time I took it out of my suit case, I got yelled at for following the sign instead of heeding shouted instructions to the contrary. 10 feet away a different agent also called me "stupid" because I had removed the toothpaste from my luggage instead of the small Kindle which is obviously bigger than a small iPhone. I guess that's the new threshold for devices that must be removed. And what recourse do I have against verbal abuse over arbitrary judgments? Well if I want to keep flying without excessive effort, none. edit: I should add, generally speaking I've found American LEOs to be very polite and pleasant, ESPECIALLY compared to some other places I've lived. They have to deal with some truly shitty situations and I'm not anti-police at all - but systemically there is large potential for abuse and some places where that abuse is clearly happening.

kasey_junk 9y ago
I’ve on 2 different occasions called the TSA complaint number due to unprofessional behavior by the agents. No idea what consequences there were for this to the agents but in both cases it was easy to do and I got follow up calls a few weeks later asking for more details.
wallace_f 9y ago
>Generally speaking, law enforcement can do whatever they want as long as they can give their superiors The accountability lies with their superiors. They are brhaving the way their superiors want them to.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  People don't behave like you want them to. "What you want someone to do" is a story, and in my experience, people respond to incentives, not stories. If you want people to catch rats to curb the rat problem and you pay for rat tails, people end up lopping tails off rats and releasing them so they can breed and provide future income. It's not as simple as making sure that TSA management has the right desired behavior out of agents.

socceroos 9y ago

Why anyone in this circumstance, US citizen or not, deserves this treatment is beyond me.

bluntfang 9y ago

government is essentially a monopoly on violence.

Cyphase 9y ago
States[1], not governments[2]; an often unrecognized distinction. Also, while the layperson might not think about the state having a monopoly on violence, it's not exactly a secret or controversial thing. See the Wikipedia article on the topic[3] and this clip of Barack Obama[4][5]. That Obama clip is somewhat popular with libertarian types, accompanied with some form of, "See! Aha! He's admitting it!". As a "libertarian type" myself (though I try not to use that word to describe myself since it has a muddled meaning), my reaction is more along the lines of, "Well, yea." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s (not endorsing the source) [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s (more context)
- Cyphase 9y ago
  Whoops, forgot to double newline the citations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m54s (not endorsing the source) [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpITpm5NxOE&t=1m35s (more context)
schrodinger 9y ago
Of course it is. What's the alternative? The state, with due process and a mandatory trial by your peers, is really the only thing worth entrusting with a right to violence. It certainly isn't perfect, but at least we control it, and it works mostly in our collective best interest.

rectang 9y ago

First, they came for the migrants, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a migrant. …