3 ms·

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.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    That makes sense now -- you're not going to be bringing in contraband plants or animals or drugs on your phone.
- cornholio 9y ago
  It's clearly unreasonable: a customs search with the reasonable purpose of preventing contraband is used for massive intrusion in the personal life of specially selected people. It's a way government can eschew all constitutional protection for private data, by simply waiting for the target to cross a border, practical for a majority of citizens. Data is substantially different from physical possessions because it's very portable and most people do indeed carry vast amounts with them when traveling. Furthermore, in the modern world data import or export offenses (espionage) do not employ physical border crossings, so there is almost no reasonable offense the search could uncover.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The word "reasonable" in this case is almost a term of art, meaning "the courts get to decide". Decide they have.
  - giancarlostoro 9y ago
    Whose to also say that we can trust the people doing the searches? What if someone who has top secret government documents on their phone and it gets compromised? The person sells said documents to another state, or worse yet, one of them (or their systems) is compromised by foreign hackers? Now it's a data mining point and who would suspect them to be the root cause? I don't know enough about their systems or their hiring requirements to trust them with my phone. I much rather buy a travel phone that I can pop in a SIM card when I reach my destination and isolate the information available on it.
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  If people are being physically abused then it is completely unreasonable.
da_chicken 9y ago
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and the state must show cause for conducting any search. At a border crossing, search for contraband (including contraband plants and animals which can seriously damage the United States) are an exception because it's reasonable to search people at a border crossing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception Here, the EFF has to show that the search that was conducted wasn't reasonable in some manner or that it otherwise violates due process. They will need to show that the execution of the search wasn't reasonable, because being subject to a search in and of itself generally is. The only SCotUS ruling on search of electronic devices has been Riley v California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California) where they ruled that a search warrant was required to search an electronic device even when an individual has already been placed under arrest.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

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.
- ams6110 9y ago
  That makes sense now -- you're not going to be bringing in contraband plants or animals or drugs on your phone.
cornholio 9y ago
It's clearly unreasonable: a customs search with the reasonable purpose of preventing contraband is used for massive intrusion in the personal life of specially selected people. It's a way government can eschew all constitutional protection for private data, by simply waiting for the target to cross a border, practical for a majority of citizens. Data is substantially different from physical possessions because it's very portable and most people do indeed carry vast amounts with them when traveling. Furthermore, in the modern world data import or export offenses (espionage) do not employ physical border crossings, so there is almost no reasonable offense the search could uncover.
- tptacek 9y ago
  The word "reasonable" in this case is almost a term of art, meaning "the courts get to decide". Decide they have.
- giancarlostoro 9y ago
  Whose to also say that we can trust the people doing the searches? What if someone who has top secret government documents on their phone and it gets compromised? The person sells said documents to another state, or worse yet, one of them (or their systems) is compromised by foreign hackers? Now it's a data mining point and who would suspect them to be the root cause? I don't know enough about their systems or their hiring requirements to trust them with my phone. I much rather buy a travel phone that I can pop in a SIM card when I reach my destination and isolate the information available on it.
giancarlostoro 9y ago
If people are being physically abused then it is completely unreasonable.

da_chicken 9y ago

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and the state must show cause for conducting any search. At a border crossing, search for contraband (including contraband plants and animals which can seriously damage the United States) are an exception because it's reasonable to search people at a border crossing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception Here, the EFF has to show that the search that was conducted wasn't reasonable in some manner or that it otherwise violates due process. They will need to show that the execution of the search wasn't reasonable, because being subject to a search in and of itself generally is. The only SCotUS ruling on search of electronic devices has been Riley v California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California) where they ruled that a search warrant was required to search an electronic device even when an individual has already been placed under arrest.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]