11 ms·

Traveler sues US Customs and Border Protection over iPhone search and seizure

363 points by dewiz 8y ago

wyldfire 8y ago
> The lawsuit alleges that border agents took a copy of the data on her smartphone and failed to say whether it had been deleted. This seems like it's remarkably hard to know. I suppose this may hinge on which model of the iphone she had.
erkose 8y ago
This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what "in a state of undress" means.
- jrockway 8y ago
  Doesn't really matter. The fact that she was made to be uncomfortable was the problem.
  - LeoPanthera 8y ago
    And you would be wrong. She meant "without hijab".
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. According to Wikipedia:[0] > In front of her husband: There is no restriction in Islam on what body parts a woman may show to her husband in private. The husband and wife can see any part of each other’s body especially during sexual intercourse. That is, Islam isn't puritanical. Sexist, for sure, but not puritanical. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam Edit: bad taste
    - komali2 8y ago
      To be fair, that may have the exact cultural implication to a Muslim that being naked would have to your average, I dunno, midwestern Christian American woman. So "state of undress" seems to work quite well... meh, this thread is too deep.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - mirimir 8y ago
      OK, what's your source for that statement? Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has no obligation to provide.
      - phyzome 8y ago
        Can't speak for them, but: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-...
        mirimir 8y ago
        There's nothing there about what was on the iPhone. Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.
        phyzome 8y ago
        There sure is: « Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab, she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men who are not members of her family. The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her phone. They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      I don't see how that refutes the comment you're replying to.
- phyzome 8y ago
  ArsTechnica has a better article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-... She's Muslim, and did not want unrelated men to see her without her hijab. Perhaps she was also naked, who knows? But she probably wouldn't say that, out of propriety. (The fact that she's a member of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, maybe explain why they were hassling her in particular.)
jrockway 8y ago
Good. Ultimately, the invasiveness of this sort of search is not worth the slim chance that something of legal interest may be discovered. Criminals have free reign to "import" data via the Internet already, so they're just going to go that route most of the time. If you suspect someone of a crime, get a warrant, and then have your customs officer seize the device. But the "we're just checking to make sure you're not doing anything illegal" is antithetical to the freedoms the United States guarantees, and should not be tolerated at the border... at least when the stakes are this low. I hope this case sees trial and the judge understands how to weigh the invasiveness against the possible benefits.
- berbec 8y ago
  They'll try like hell to keep it out of court for just this reason. I imagine she'll end up getting a dumptruck full of money and a crazy NDA
  - koolba 8y ago
    I doubt it. They’d likely win in court as the laws applicable at the border are not the same as the rights you have being stopped on the street. Now if the trial itself leads to public outcry to change those rules that’d be great but as it stands now I think she’d lose.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      But is it worth the risk of bubbling up to a court that wants to make a precedence-setting stance against, say, the practice of copying/storing the data when the feds will have little to gain if they win?
      - koolba 8y ago
        Setting precedent by winning one court case would be a lot cheaper than settling N copy cat lawsuits.
        8y ago
deusofnull 8y ago
Im glad she resisted this seizure of her personal property. But what about all the data that phone transmits over the internet which can be / is collected by most every intelligence agency, without a warrant?
- gruez 8y ago
  What are you implying here? That the violation isn't as bad because the data was already being collected by other agencies/companies?
  - mykeliu 8y ago
    I believe the question being raised is the opposite: that this violation is bad, and we cannot neglect the other violations already being done remotely by these other agencies.
    - deusofnull 8y ago
      yes, this exactly. thank you. im not some paranoid "tinfoil hat" person as accused below. I mean, we see the articles posted here on hackernews daily about insecure information security, corporate malfeasance, and stories like this where law enforcement steps over legal boundaries. I dont think its an incredible position to hold that intelligence agencies exploit all 3 of those situations, including any number of undisclosed zero-days, in order to surveil broad swaths of the population.
  - deusofnull 8y ago
    No, I'm not saying the seizure of the phone is less egregious. Rather, I'm asserting that intelligence agencies almost certainly operate outside the law regularly. That doesn't make the first thing less bad, but it does show our whole situation to be far worse.
- nutjob2 8y ago
  "is collected by most every intelligence agency, without a warrant" This is tinfoil hat stuff. Depending on the data and the situation, they need warrants just like everyone else.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
This a very reasonable request. You have a right to have my phone etc etc but now delete all the data. Don't let the most private data hang on some database forever. Yes, she's a Muslim connected to CAIR so she was probably hoping they'd take her phone to sue, but rights are rights.
- Mizza 8y ago
  > You have a right to have my phone etc etc What? Nobody has the right to look at my phone.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - komali2 8y ago
    Furthermore, how does every single person in your contact list feel about their email/phone number/address / messages to you getting leaked to the government? What about websites with TOSs that state unequivocally that only YOU are allowed to use their website under your account?
  - whamlastxmas 8y ago
    If you're crossing an international border into the US, they do.
    - DINKDINK 8y ago
      CBP has no such right. The legal structure /supports/ such actions but they have no right. Say it with me "I am not a slave"
    - Mizza 8y ago
      Not without "reasonable suspicion"[1]. Even then, I still reject the idea that they have the right. They'd only be doing it despite my protests. They only have the "right" because they have the force, it's not different than any other type of authoritarianism. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protection-search-phone-legal-rights https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protec...
chimeracoder 8y ago
I'm confused by this - if she refused to unlock her phone, how would they have obtained a copy of the data?
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  "Jane Doe and John Does 1-2 provided Ms. Lazoja a receipt (No. 1199376) dated February 26, 2018, documenting CBP’s seizure of her iPhone and SIM Card, and indicating the iPhone and SIM Card were “Sent to DHS Lab.” (Rejhane Aff. ¶ 27); see Ex. A." They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that time they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted that data). Regardless, the plaintiff argues that keeping the phone for that period of time without a warrant was unconstitutional in the first place.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that time they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted that data). My understanding is that the data can't be (feasibly) extracted and decrypted from a modern iPhone, though. Isn't that why the FBI made such a big fuss about Apple not "cooperating" to backdoor devices? I understand the argument about the seizure being unconstitutional, but I'm talking strictly about the cryptographic aspects here.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      > My understanding is that the data can't be (feasibly) extracted and decrypted from a modern iPhone, though. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/government-can-access-any-apple-iphone-cellebrite/#7617a145667a https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/gover... Also, the motion requests: Plaintiff Rejhane Lazoja respectfully asks this Court to order Defendants to return her Data, to expunge any copies made of the Data, to disclose all third parties who received and/or retain copies, partial or complete, of the Data, and to provide information about the basis for the seizure and retention of the property. If the judge grants all of these requests, it will be interesting to watch what happens with the request: ...return her Data... If it comes to this, I hope the plaintiff asks the court to know whether the data was decrypted. I.e., if you decrypted my data, you need to return that to me. The original image doesn't suffice. Maybe "correspondence with council" is the groundwork for this later request? I.e., something along the lines of "I have a right to know what the government now knows about my private correspondence with my council." The "partial or complete" portion of the request is also relevant for answering this question: the information is legally relevant (and the request reasonable) because some of the correspondence was between the plaintiff and her council, and also because if they shared partial information that almost certainly means they were able to decrypt the data. The govt's response to the timeframe arguments will also certainly leak some information about the government's capabilities; e.g., I imagine the gov't will argue that 130 days was necessary in order to execute the search, and/or that they need to retain the data so that they might one day be able to execute the search.
outlace 8y ago
I came back to the states into LAX from a trip to China a few months ago and one of the CBP agents was yelling and harassing many of the visiting Chinese people who did not speak English because they were not following directions. It was one of the biggest power trips I’ve seen. I felt absolutely terrible for those people and ashamed that this was their introduction to America.
- mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  Yep, see this every time. Do they have an accent? If yes, limitless permission to act like the worst asshole in the world and treat people like animals. Then you have to step up next to them in line and act like you didn’t see any of that just now. As a white male with no accent I just get the friendly welcome back, but what I really want to do to that person would put me in prison.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Last time I returned to the US from Brazil, the entire experience through immigration and customs was one angry loud yelling lady after another. Nobody was even doing anything wrong or making mistakes. It was just their standard way of talking to people. Totally not who you would want welcoming someone to our country.
  - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
    I’ve had a very embarrassing experience when I was moving out of the states and packed my carry on with random stuff - as you’d expect someone moving might pack. The scanner lady made jokes at my expense while she dug through my carry on. The people in front and behind me were visibly as embarrassed as I was. Those people need to undergo sensitivity training.
- nutjob2 8y ago
  When I entered the US as an new immigrant at LAX the immigration agent there was almost comically rude and aggressive with me. He keep on shouting at me, telling me to do things but not explaining what that entailed, he even refused to lend me a pen when he told me to sign the paper. I was just some random person in line and had never seen him before. I don't know what his problem was but I didn't care. I was going to get what I needed regardless.
throwawayjava 8y ago
Here's the motion: https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/08/23/lazojamotion.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/08/23/lazojamotion.pdf A few interesting aspects: * Lazoja is suing over the data, not (just) the physical device (Her phone was already returned to her.) Also, she is making additional arguments that the duration of retention for both the device and the data on it are unreasonable. I hope at least one of these claims succeeds; even if warrantless border searches are permissible, retaining hdd/sdd dumps should not be allowed. * The motion mentions several times that the device contained persona, private information including "pictures of her in a state of undress, as well as privileged communications with her counsel". She requested all data (and especially this data) be deleted and the response was radio silence.
pimeys 8y ago
I need to travel to US for Christmas celebrations. My phone is kind of important for my diabetes control and insulin dosage. My pump and CGM do not tolerate x-ray and it's prohibited in the manual. What are my chances to go through the US border safe, or should I cancel my trip?
- komali2 8y ago
  Keep the pump and CGM on you, don't check them. When you leave, you'll have to let TSA manually look at them. Tell them before they put it on the Smith's detection belt, which uses Xray. Customs and border control don't xray your stuff unless you're randomly selected. If you're randomly selected, tell them about the pump and CGM and how it can't be xray. Based on my experience with asshole CBP agents, they may "punish" you by throwing all your shit all over the place when they paw through your stuff, or you might get lucky and get just a normal search. As for your phone, lock it with a password, disable fingerprint unlock, and good luck. I wanted to link to CBP's help website for medical devices, but their HTTPS certificate is invalid lol. Fuck's sake. https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2016/11/15/tsa-shares-tips-travelers-disabilities-medical-devices-medical-conditions https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2016/11/15/tsa-shares-tips...
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > but their HTTPS certificate is invalid lol. And yet, these are the folks we 'trust' to protect our borders.
  - toyg 8y ago
    > unless you're randomly selected There is nothing "random" in the selection, let's not continue spreading this delusion. It took 4 trips to the US, for that sorry excuse of an AI they use for the selection, to finally decide I wasn't a threat. If algorithms to generate numbers were all as random as the TSA one, I could probably predict every encryption key out there.
- compostable 8y ago
  Honestly, cancel the trip. Meet in Canada instead.
throw2016 8y ago
This is beyond the pale and is not consistent with democracy or basic human rights. No democracy will subject people to the indignity of security personnel presuming the right to go through their personal papers and thoughts. It is dehumanizing and shifts the pendulum towards a police state.
wpdev_63 8y ago
Seizing and inspecting cellphones when people enter the country is nothing more than a means of harassment, intimidation, and more or less #falseflag story. As soon as your cellphone, ipad, etc. hit american networks and you have been IDed as a person of interest, they(3 letter agencies) will be combing through your device. Don't fool yourself thinking that devices are secure.
- deviationblue 8y ago
  Exactly this. The whole point of these exercises is putting the inferior races in their place.
BigChiefSmokem 8y ago
The solution here is that the U.S. Constitution should apply to U.S. Citizens at the border or in any territory, anyone else does not get the benefit of a warrant.
- zamazingo 8y ago
  Please see the following for a list of constitutional amendments this would suspend to non-citizens: https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html For more information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Sta... I also expect this would lead to suspending all US laws guaranteeing human rights to non-citizens at the border. As far as I know, US agencies are not subject to prosecution by international criminal courts, which would make their employees immune to any prospect of human rights violations-related prosecution.
  - BigChiefSmokem 8y ago
    The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens because the United States of America has NO sovereignty outside its borders. Human rights treaties should be arranged through the U.N. as intended that's why it was chartered, if we are not using it that way that is not the responsibility of U.S. Citizens to solve.
    - techsupporter 8y ago
      The Constitution of the United States should--and does--apply to all persons within the United States and/or subject to the United States' rules or interactions with the United States government (subject to limitations specifically ascribed to citizens, such as the right to vote or hold public office). No one would argue that the US' Constitution is binding on any other government but it absolutely is binding on the actions of the US government, and should be so binding anywhere on the planet because the Constitution forms the basis for the US government's very existence.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
schoen 8y ago
EFF and ACLU also have an active case about this topic (which I've worked on), filed in September 2017. https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke (It was called Alasaad v. Duke when it was filed and is now called Alasaad v. Nielsen.) The Alasaad case is pending in a different Federal court (the District of Massachusetts).
appleflaxen 8y ago
This comes on the heels of the TSA requiring a Muslim woman to show her used menstrual pad to screeners in Boston. https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/muslim-woman-forced-show-tsa-bloody-pad-during-search.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/muslim-woman-forced-show-tsa-... The TSA is an entity that provides no security, but still manages to degrade the constitution.

363 points by dewiz 8y ago

> The lawsuit alleges that border agents took a copy of the data on her smartphone and failed to say whether it had been deleted. This seems like it's remarkably hard to know. I suppose this may hinge on which model of the iphone she had.

erkose 8y ago

This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what "in a state of undress" means.

jrockway 8y ago
Doesn't really matter. The fact that she was made to be uncomfortable was the problem.
- LeoPanthera 8y ago
  And you would be wrong. She meant "without hijab".
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. According to Wikipedia:[0] > In front of her husband: There is no restriction in Islam on what body parts a woman may show to her husband in private. The husband and wife can see any part of each other’s body especially during sexual intercourse. That is, Islam isn't puritanical. Sexist, for sure, but not puritanical. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_parts_in_Islam Edit: bad taste
  - komali2 8y ago
    To be fair, that may have the exact cultural implication to a Muslim that being naked would have to your average, I dunno, midwestern Christian American woman. So "state of undress" seems to work quite well... meh, this thread is too deep.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mirimir 8y ago
    OK, what's your source for that statement? Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has no obligation to provide.
    - phyzome 8y ago
      Can't speak for them, but: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-...
      - mirimir 8y ago
        There's nothing there about what was on the iPhone. Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.
        phyzome 8y ago
        There sure is: « Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab, she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men who are not members of her family. The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her phone. They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    I don't see how that refutes the comment you're replying to.
phyzome 8y ago
ArsTechnica has a better article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-... She's Muslim, and did not want unrelated men to see her without her hijab. Perhaps she was also naked, who knows? But she probably wouldn't say that, out of propriety. (The fact that she's a member of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, maybe explain why they were hassling her in particular.)

jrockway 8y ago

Good. Ultimately, the invasiveness of this sort of search is not worth the slim chance that something of legal interest may be discovered. Criminals have free reign to "import" data via the Internet already, so they're just going to go that route most of the time. If you suspect someone of a crime, get a warrant, and then have your customs officer seize the device. But the "we're just checking to make sure you're not doing anything illegal" is antithetical to the freedoms the United States guarantees, and should not be tolerated at the border... at least when the stakes are this low. I hope this case sees trial and the judge understands how to weigh the invasiveness against the possible benefits.

berbec 8y ago
They'll try like hell to keep it out of court for just this reason. I imagine she'll end up getting a dumptruck full of money and a crazy NDA
- koolba 8y ago
  I doubt it. They’d likely win in court as the laws applicable at the border are not the same as the rights you have being stopped on the street. Now if the trial itself leads to public outcry to change those rules that’d be great but as it stands now I think she’d lose.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    But is it worth the risk of bubbling up to a court that wants to make a precedence-setting stance against, say, the practice of copying/storing the data when the feds will have little to gain if they win?
    - koolba 8y ago
      Setting precedent by winning one court case would be a lot cheaper than settling N copy cat lawsuits.
      - 8y ago

deusofnull 8y ago

Im glad she resisted this seizure of her personal property. But what about all the data that phone transmits over the internet which can be / is collected by most every intelligence agency, without a warrant?

gruez 8y ago
What are you implying here? That the violation isn't as bad because the data was already being collected by other agencies/companies?
- mykeliu 8y ago
  I believe the question being raised is the opposite: that this violation is bad, and we cannot neglect the other violations already being done remotely by these other agencies.
  - deusofnull 8y ago
    yes, this exactly. thank you. im not some paranoid "tinfoil hat" person as accused below. I mean, we see the articles posted here on hackernews daily about insecure information security, corporate malfeasance, and stories like this where law enforcement steps over legal boundaries. I dont think its an incredible position to hold that intelligence agencies exploit all 3 of those situations, including any number of undisclosed zero-days, in order to surveil broad swaths of the population.
- deusofnull 8y ago
  No, I'm not saying the seizure of the phone is less egregious. Rather, I'm asserting that intelligence agencies almost certainly operate outside the law regularly. That doesn't make the first thing less bad, but it does show our whole situation to be far worse.
nutjob2 8y ago
"is collected by most every intelligence agency, without a warrant" This is tinfoil hat stuff. Depending on the data and the situation, they need warrants just like everyone else.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

This a very reasonable request. You have a right to have my phone etc etc but now delete all the data. Don't let the most private data hang on some database forever. Yes, she's a Muslim connected to CAIR so she was probably hoping they'd take her phone to sue, but rights are rights.

Mizza 8y ago
> You have a right to have my phone etc etc What? Nobody has the right to look at my phone.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 8y ago
  Furthermore, how does every single person in your contact list feel about their email/phone number/address / messages to you getting leaked to the government? What about websites with TOSs that state unequivocally that only YOU are allowed to use their website under your account?
- whamlastxmas 8y ago
  If you're crossing an international border into the US, they do.
  - DINKDINK 8y ago
    CBP has no such right. The legal structure /supports/ such actions but they have no right. Say it with me "I am not a slave"
  - Mizza 8y ago
    Not without "reasonable suspicion"[1]. Even then, I still reject the idea that they have the right. They'd only be doing it despite my protests. They only have the "right" because they have the force, it's not different than any other type of authoritarianism. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protection-search-phone-legal-rights https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protec...

chimeracoder 8y ago

I'm confused by this - if she refused to unlock her phone, how would they have obtained a copy of the data?

throwawayjava 8y ago
"Jane Doe and John Does 1-2 provided Ms. Lazoja a receipt (No. 1199376) dated February 26, 2018, documenting CBP’s seizure of her iPhone and SIM Card, and indicating the iPhone and SIM Card were “Sent to DHS Lab.” (Rejhane Aff. ¶ 27); see Ex. A." They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that time they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted that data). Regardless, the plaintiff argues that keeping the phone for that period of time without a warrant was unconstitutional in the first place.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that time they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted that data). My understanding is that the data can't be (feasibly) extracted and decrypted from a modern iPhone, though. Isn't that why the FBI made such a big fuss about Apple not "cooperating" to backdoor devices? I understand the argument about the seizure being unconstitutional, but I'm talking strictly about the cryptographic aspects here.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > My understanding is that the data can't be (feasibly) extracted and decrypted from a modern iPhone, though. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/government-can-access-any-apple-iphone-cellebrite/#7617a145667a https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/gover... Also, the motion requests: Plaintiff Rejhane Lazoja respectfully asks this Court to order Defendants to return her Data, to expunge any copies made of the Data, to disclose all third parties who received and/or retain copies, partial or complete, of the Data, and to provide information about the basis for the seizure and retention of the property. If the judge grants all of these requests, it will be interesting to watch what happens with the request: ...return her Data... If it comes to this, I hope the plaintiff asks the court to know whether the data was decrypted. I.e., if you decrypted my data, you need to return that to me. The original image doesn't suffice. Maybe "correspondence with council" is the groundwork for this later request? I.e., something along the lines of "I have a right to know what the government now knows about my private correspondence with my council." The "partial or complete" portion of the request is also relevant for answering this question: the information is legally relevant (and the request reasonable) because some of the correspondence was between the plaintiff and her council, and also because if they shared partial information that almost certainly means they were able to decrypt the data. The govt's response to the timeframe arguments will also certainly leak some information about the government's capabilities; e.g., I imagine the gov't will argue that 130 days was necessary in order to execute the search, and/or that they need to retain the data so that they might one day be able to execute the search.

outlace 8y ago

I came back to the states into LAX from a trip to China a few months ago and one of the CBP agents was yelling and harassing many of the visiting Chinese people who did not speak English because they were not following directions. It was one of the biggest power trips I’ve seen. I felt absolutely terrible for those people and ashamed that this was their introduction to America.

mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
Yep, see this every time. Do they have an accent? If yes, limitless permission to act like the worst asshole in the world and treat people like animals. Then you have to step up next to them in line and act like you didn’t see any of that just now. As a white male with no accent I just get the friendly welcome back, but what I really want to do to that person would put me in prison.
ryandrake 8y ago
Last time I returned to the US from Brazil, the entire experience through immigration and customs was one angry loud yelling lady after another. Nobody was even doing anything wrong or making mistakes. It was just their standard way of talking to people. Totally not who you would want welcoming someone to our country.
- mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  I’ve had a very embarrassing experience when I was moving out of the states and packed my carry on with random stuff - as you’d expect someone moving might pack. The scanner lady made jokes at my expense while she dug through my carry on. The people in front and behind me were visibly as embarrassed as I was. Those people need to undergo sensitivity training.
nutjob2 8y ago
When I entered the US as an new immigrant at LAX the immigration agent there was almost comically rude and aggressive with me. He keep on shouting at me, telling me to do things but not explaining what that entailed, he even refused to lend me a pen when he told me to sign the paper. I was just some random person in line and had never seen him before. I don't know what his problem was but I didn't care. I was going to get what I needed regardless.

throwawayjava 8y ago

Here's the motion: https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/08/23/lazojamotion.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/08/23/lazojamotion.pdf A few interesting aspects: * Lazoja is suing over the data, not (just) the physical device (Her phone was already returned to her.) Also, she is making additional arguments that the duration of retention for both the device and the data on it are unreasonable. I hope at least one of these claims succeeds; even if warrantless border searches are permissible, retaining hdd/sdd dumps should not be allowed. * The motion mentions several times that the device contained persona, private information including "pictures of her in a state of undress, as well as privileged communications with her counsel". She requested all data (and especially this data) be deleted and the response was radio silence.

pimeys 8y ago

I need to travel to US for Christmas celebrations. My phone is kind of important for my diabetes control and insulin dosage. My pump and CGM do not tolerate x-ray and it's prohibited in the manual. What are my chances to go through the US border safe, or should I cancel my trip?

komali2 8y ago
Keep the pump and CGM on you, don't check them. When you leave, you'll have to let TSA manually look at them. Tell them before they put it on the Smith's detection belt, which uses Xray. Customs and border control don't xray your stuff unless you're randomly selected. If you're randomly selected, tell them about the pump and CGM and how it can't be xray. Based on my experience with asshole CBP agents, they may "punish" you by throwing all your shit all over the place when they paw through your stuff, or you might get lucky and get just a normal search. As for your phone, lock it with a password, disable fingerprint unlock, and good luck. I wanted to link to CBP's help website for medical devices, but their HTTPS certificate is invalid lol. Fuck's sake. https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2016/11/15/tsa-shares-tips-travelers-disabilities-medical-devices-medical-conditions https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2016/11/15/tsa-shares-tips...
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > but their HTTPS certificate is invalid lol. And yet, these are the folks we 'trust' to protect our borders.
- toyg 8y ago
  > unless you're randomly selected There is nothing "random" in the selection, let's not continue spreading this delusion. It took 4 trips to the US, for that sorry excuse of an AI they use for the selection, to finally decide I wasn't a threat. If algorithms to generate numbers were all as random as the TSA one, I could probably predict every encryption key out there.
compostable 8y ago
Honestly, cancel the trip. Meet in Canada instead.

throw2016 8y ago

This is beyond the pale and is not consistent with democracy or basic human rights. No democracy will subject people to the indignity of security personnel presuming the right to go through their personal papers and thoughts. It is dehumanizing and shifts the pendulum towards a police state.

wpdev_63 8y ago

Seizing and inspecting cellphones when people enter the country is nothing more than a means of harassment, intimidation, and more or less #falseflag story. As soon as your cellphone, ipad, etc. hit american networks and you have been IDed as a person of interest, they(3 letter agencies) will be combing through your device. Don't fool yourself thinking that devices are secure.

deviationblue 8y ago
Exactly this. The whole point of these exercises is putting the inferior races in their place.

BigChiefSmokem 8y ago

The solution here is that the U.S. Constitution should apply to U.S. Citizens at the border or in any territory, anyone else does not get the benefit of a warrant.

zamazingo 8y ago
Please see the following for a list of constitutional amendments this would suspend to non-citizens: https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html For more information, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Sta... I also expect this would lead to suspending all US laws guaranteeing human rights to non-citizens at the border. As far as I know, US agencies are not subject to prosecution by international criminal courts, which would make their employees immune to any prospect of human rights violations-related prosecution.
- BigChiefSmokem 8y ago
  The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens because the United States of America has NO sovereignty outside its borders. Human rights treaties should be arranged through the U.N. as intended that's why it was chartered, if we are not using it that way that is not the responsibility of U.S. Citizens to solve.
  - techsupporter 8y ago
    The Constitution of the United States should--and does--apply to all persons within the United States and/or subject to the United States' rules or interactions with the United States government (subject to limitations specifically ascribed to citizens, such as the right to vote or hold public office). No one would argue that the US' Constitution is binding on any other government but it absolutely is binding on the actions of the US government, and should be so binding anywhere on the planet because the Constitution forms the basis for the US government's very existence.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago

schoen 8y ago

EFF and ACLU also have an active case about this topic (which I've worked on), filed in September 2017. https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke (It was called Alasaad v. Duke when it was filed and is now called Alasaad v. Nielsen.) The Alasaad case is pending in a different Federal court (the District of Massachusetts).

appleflaxen 8y ago

This comes on the heels of the TSA requiring a Muslim woman to show her used menstrual pad to screeners in Boston. https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/muslim-woman-forced-show-tsa-bloody-pad-during-search.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/muslim-woman-forced-show-tsa-... The TSA is an entity that provides no security, but still manages to degrade the constitution.