5 ms·

> taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search If it's optional and I can and will refuse, fine. If i

> taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search If it's optional and I can and will refuse, fine. If it's not,and I'm not attempting to cross a border, they can get stuffed. For domestic travel, they do not need to examine the data - only the physical device needs to be examined to rule out security risk. They can do that non-intrusively with imaging and chemical analysis technology. The idea that someone could claim that a limited intrusion into the contents of my communications isn't an intrusion at all is absurd.

pentagonpapers 9y ago
...
- pentagonpapers 9y ago
  deleting this comment as i will by flying a few weeks
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    this is exactly what you shouldn't be afraid of.
justinjlynn 9y ago
I should clarify: If them looking through my data is not optional and I can't refuse, and I'm not at a border crossing (which is still bullshit imo, but well trodden precedent), they'd better have goddamn signed warrant.
- lovich 9y ago
  Isn't the argument that every international airport constitutes a border, and every mile of beach, and every mile of an actual border? That zone covers the majority of the population of the US constantly.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    This is a concern, yes.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    Don't you mean any area within 100 miles of the borders? That means some states are completely within this region and are all subject to border searches.
    - justinjlynn 9y ago
      I would love to see the government attempt to defend such a stance in front of the supreme court. I have a sneaking suspicion there'd be a major judicial shitfit on that. Chief Justice would probably be all: "LOL, you did wut? ಠ_ಠ"
      - oldandtired 9y ago
        The problem is that they don't have to (yet). They do it now and get away with it and currently with impunity. If I recall correctly, there is a case in Texas about the matter, but that is the only one I know of at the moment.
- HedgeSparrow 9y ago
  I've got a question: to what extent can they dish up the "Terms of Service" argument? That is, can they refuse to fly you (domestic) if you refuse to comply because it's a "term of service"? Is there any niddling contract law in purchasing plane tickets?

pentagonpapers 9y ago

...

pentagonpapers 9y ago
deleting this comment as i will by flying a few weeks
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  this is exactly what you shouldn't be afraid of.

justinjlynn 9y ago

I should clarify: If them looking through my data is not optional and I can't refuse, and I'm not at a border crossing (which is still bullshit imo, but well trodden precedent), they'd better have goddamn signed warrant.

lovich 9y ago
Isn't the argument that every international airport constitutes a border, and every mile of beach, and every mile of an actual border? That zone covers the majority of the population of the US constantly.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  This is a concern, yes.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Don't you mean any area within 100 miles of the borders? That means some states are completely within this region and are all subject to border searches.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    I would love to see the government attempt to defend such a stance in front of the supreme court. I have a sneaking suspicion there'd be a major judicial shitfit on that. Chief Justice would probably be all: "LOL, you did wut? ಠ_ಠ"
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      The problem is that they don't have to (yet). They do it now and get away with it and currently with impunity. If I recall correctly, there is a case in Texas about the matter, but that is the only one I know of at the moment.
HedgeSparrow 9y ago
I've got a question: to what extent can they dish up the "Terms of Service" argument? That is, can they refuse to fly you (domestic) if you refuse to comply because it's a "term of service"? Is there any niddling contract law in purchasing plane tickets?