4 ms·

OK, so what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? Their actions have effectively said that for almost 20 yea

OK, so what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? Their actions have effectively said that for almost 20 years.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body. Practically, this means donating to the ACLU and related groups. It also means, if you’re party to injustice, suing or reaching out to organisation who can help you sue to assert our rights.
- _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
  "The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body." Because I'm interested, what would be the top three situations where that happened that come to your mind?
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    You may recall a certain war faught against the British...
    - _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
      The UK was a tyranny at that time? How would you define tyranny then?
      - waterheater 7y ago
        A general definition is "oppressive power." A tyranny must be recognized. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution "The Continental Congress declared King George a tyrant who trampled the colonists' rights as Englishmen..." If you recognize a tyranny but do nothing, you stand to receive further oppression. Consider the case of the PRC. The CCP is tyrannical toward those they rule; we plainly see this reality from our perch of liberty. However, unless the Chinese people recognize the tyrannical nature of the CCP, they'll continue receiving oppression. Making this realization harder is the PRC's surveillance apparatus and the population's indoctrination. I wish them luck.
        _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
        So what you say the main thing is, when I declare you a tyrant you are a tyrant. And because they suppressed (non voting, poor) people in the UK didn't declare their king a tyrant it wasn't one for them.
        waterheater 7y ago
        Humans can recognize tyranny but never do anything about it. Bullying, abusive relationships, and slavery are some examples of this reality. Once you recognize the form of tyranny, you can put a name to it and act. I don't know the exact reasons people put up with tyranny. I suspect every situation is somewhat unique. However, answering that question would allow many future harms to be prevented. The American revolutionaries declared King George III a tyrant, but that couldn't be the end; open rebellion would mean certain harm or death. So, they acted. They made a case for taking up arms against the crown. They then resolved to become independent (found in the Lee Resolution/"Resolution of Independence"). Two days later, they declared independence. And they fought. Note, though, that the Revolution required the recognition of tyranny.
  - _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
    <noirony>I would really be interested in case where 'A vigilant and engaged citizen body.' stopped tyranny.</noirony>
- thisisnico 7y ago
  Do these suspicions require some sort of preliminary-evidence of those suspicions before acted upon?
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    Reasonable suspicion must be based on rational inferences from specific and articulable facts, as opposed to just a hunch.
    - fenwick67 7y ago
      Sadly I fear officers in this scenario will probably just find a "furtive gesture" or "smell of marijuana" equivalent to point to.
  - abathur 7y ago
    Edit: Oops. Fixed a use of "probable cause" where I meant "reasonable suspicion". IANAL, but my rough impression from the opinion is kinda. It seems like the reasonable suspicion can emerge entirely from the interaction itself, but that it should be based facts/reasons the agent(s) can articulate. I found the section titled "7. Reasonable Suspicion, not Probable Cause, Applies to Both Such Searches" on pages 33-38 of the actual opinion (embedded on https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-opinion-summary-judgment https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-opin...) provided good background on this.
    - abathur 7y ago
      Later on page 46 there's a more succinct statement. The judge is evaluating one element of the relief the plaintiffs sought--that the agencies be required to expunge data copied during a search which, per the ruling, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the judge is addressing one stated reason for seeking that relief--concern that data obtained unconstitutionally will leave them forever flagged for extra scrutiny. > "in the future, whether information has been retained from prior searches or not, agents must be able to point to specific and articulable facts for reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiffs’ electronic devices contain contraband, which also addresses the concern about any likelihood, greater than the general public of U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. borders, of being subject to a non-cursory search."
- c3534l 7y ago
  So we're doomed, then.
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    Even the headline of the article suggests otherwise.
- mikehotel 7y ago
  Suing any LEO is hard. Patriot Act covered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4uCOAzrbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4uCOAzrbM I agree donating to ACLU, EFF and similar orgs is our best option. Most of us do not get prosecuted unjustly, but we need to pool resources to defend those that do.
mikece 7y ago
Ask them to explain what their reasonable suspicion basis for wanting to search your phone is. Without reasonable suspicion it's, by definition, an unreasonable search.
- koenigdavidmj 7y ago
  To add onto this, unreasonable doesn’t mean “unfair”. It means “backed by reason”. Like in a jury case, reasonable doubt doesn’t mean “a small level of doubt is acceptable”. It means that “aliens made me do it” is not sufficient to counter evidence.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  They don't have to articulate their reasonable suspicion to you, they need to articulate their reasonable suspicion to the court.
- refurb 7y ago
  And if they tell you stuff it? What are you going to do. The best approach is to know your rights, remind them of them, then let them do what they are going to do. Bad searches get solved in court, not at the time of the search. You may get lucky and have them back down if it's clear you know they have no right to search, but I wouldn't bet on it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
“suspicionless searches” refers to searches without reasonable suspicion; absent particular evidence providing grounds for reasonable suspicion particular to the searched individual, any search would remain “suspicionless” as the term is used in 4th Amendment law; the test has both subjective (was there actual suspicion) and objective (was that suspicion reasonably grounded) elements.
- 8ytecoder 7y ago
  This has to be the top comment in this thread. If you think about it why does anyone have to follow the law? Because there are consequences for when they don't. In this case, as my parent OP correctly states, there's legal precedent and case law on what a reasonable suspicion is. The agent should be able to go to a court, in front of a judge and be able to state what made him/her suspicious of you. If they can't, all evidence they collected during that search will be thrown out. That could basically kill the case. That'd be the motivation for the agent to at least come up with a plausible story on why they want to search you.
undersuit 7y ago
Hopefully you don't need to visit grandma, the onus is now on you to defend your rights. Like Ghassan and Nadia Alasaad and the nine other people who resisted similar requests from the government.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
_bxg1 7y ago
Presumably this gives you a much stronger case if you then decide to sue. If enough people do that, it starts to become a deterrent.
refurb 7y ago
Nothing. What happens is if the cause for the search was insufficient, the case gets kicked out in court.
csomar 7y ago
I though the "reasonable suspicion" needs to be documented and so is the search. Otherwise, this law might reduce the number of searches but not the abuse of it.

OK, so what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? Their actions have effectively said that for almost 20 years.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body. Practically, this means donating to the ACLU and related groups. It also means, if you’re party to injustice, suing or reaching out to organisation who can help you sue to assert our rights.

_Codemonkeyism 7y ago
"The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body." Because I'm interested, what would be the top three situations where that happened that come to your mind?
- EpicEng 7y ago
  You may recall a certain war faught against the British...
  - _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
    The UK was a tyranny at that time? How would you define tyranny then?
    - waterheater 7y ago
      A general definition is "oppressive power." A tyranny must be recognized. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution "The Continental Congress declared King George a tyrant who trampled the colonists' rights as Englishmen..." If you recognize a tyranny but do nothing, you stand to receive further oppression. Consider the case of the PRC. The CCP is tyrannical toward those they rule; we plainly see this reality from our perch of liberty. However, unless the Chinese people recognize the tyrannical nature of the CCP, they'll continue receiving oppression. Making this realization harder is the PRC's surveillance apparatus and the population's indoctrination. I wish them luck.
      - _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
        So what you say the main thing is, when I declare you a tyrant you are a tyrant. And because they suppressed (non voting, poor) people in the UK didn't declare their king a tyrant it wasn't one for them.
        waterheater 7y ago
        Humans can recognize tyranny but never do anything about it. Bullying, abusive relationships, and slavery are some examples of this reality. Once you recognize the form of tyranny, you can put a name to it and act. I don't know the exact reasons people put up with tyranny. I suspect every situation is somewhat unique. However, answering that question would allow many future harms to be prevented. The American revolutionaries declared King George III a tyrant, but that couldn't be the end; open rebellion would mean certain harm or death. So, they acted. They made a case for taking up arms against the crown. They then resolved to become independent (found in the Lee Resolution/"Resolution of Independence"). Two days later, they declared independence. And they fought. Note, though, that the Revolution required the recognition of tyranny.
- _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
  <noirony>I would really be interested in case where 'A vigilant and engaged citizen body.' stopped tyranny.</noirony>
thisisnico 7y ago
Do these suspicions require some sort of preliminary-evidence of those suspicions before acted upon?
- ryandrake 7y ago
  Reasonable suspicion must be based on rational inferences from specific and articulable facts, as opposed to just a hunch.
  - fenwick67 7y ago
    Sadly I fear officers in this scenario will probably just find a "furtive gesture" or "smell of marijuana" equivalent to point to.
- abathur 7y ago
  Edit: Oops. Fixed a use of "probable cause" where I meant "reasonable suspicion". IANAL, but my rough impression from the opinion is kinda. It seems like the reasonable suspicion can emerge entirely from the interaction itself, but that it should be based facts/reasons the agent(s) can articulate. I found the section titled "7. Reasonable Suspicion, not Probable Cause, Applies to Both Such Searches" on pages 33-38 of the actual opinion (embedded on https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-opinion-summary-judgment https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-opin...) provided good background on this.
  - abathur 7y ago
    Later on page 46 there's a more succinct statement. The judge is evaluating one element of the relief the plaintiffs sought--that the agencies be required to expunge data copied during a search which, per the ruling, is unconstitutional. More specifically, the judge is addressing one stated reason for seeking that relief--concern that data obtained unconstitutionally will leave them forever flagged for extra scrutiny. > "in the future, whether information has been retained from prior searches or not, agents must be able to point to specific and articulable facts for reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiffs’ electronic devices contain contraband, which also addresses the concern about any likelihood, greater than the general public of U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. borders, of being subject to a non-cursory search."
c3534l 7y ago
So we're doomed, then.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  Even the headline of the article suggests otherwise.
mikehotel 7y ago
Suing any LEO is hard. Patriot Act covered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4uCOAzrbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4uCOAzrbM I agree donating to ACLU, EFF and similar orgs is our best option. Most of us do not get prosecuted unjustly, but we need to pool resources to defend those that do.

mikece 7y ago

Ask them to explain what their reasonable suspicion basis for wanting to search your phone is. Without reasonable suspicion it's, by definition, an unreasonable search.

koenigdavidmj 7y ago
To add onto this, unreasonable doesn’t mean “unfair”. It means “backed by reason”. Like in a jury case, reasonable doubt doesn’t mean “a small level of doubt is acceptable”. It means that “aliens made me do it” is not sufficient to counter evidence.
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
They don't have to articulate their reasonable suspicion to you, they need to articulate their reasonable suspicion to the court.
refurb 7y ago
And if they tell you stuff it? What are you going to do. The best approach is to know your rights, remind them of them, then let them do what they are going to do. Bad searches get solved in court, not at the time of the search. You may get lucky and have them back down if it's clear you know they have no right to search, but I wouldn't bet on it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 7y ago

“suspicionless searches” refers to searches without reasonable suspicion; absent particular evidence providing grounds for reasonable suspicion particular to the searched individual, any search would remain “suspicionless” as the term is used in 4th Amendment law; the test has both subjective (was there actual suspicion) and objective (was that suspicion reasonably grounded) elements.

8ytecoder 7y ago
This has to be the top comment in this thread. If you think about it why does anyone have to follow the law? Because there are consequences for when they don't. In this case, as my parent OP correctly states, there's legal precedent and case law on what a reasonable suspicion is. The agent should be able to go to a court, in front of a judge and be able to state what made him/her suspicious of you. If they can't, all evidence they collected during that search will be thrown out. That could basically kill the case. That'd be the motivation for the agent to at least come up with a plausible story on why they want to search you.

undersuit 7y ago

Hopefully you don't need to visit grandma, the onus is now on you to defend your rights. Like Ghassan and Nadia Alasaad and the nine other people who resisted similar requests from the government.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

_bxg1 7y ago

Presumably this gives you a much stronger case if you then decide to sue. If enough people do that, it starts to become a deterrent.

refurb 7y ago

Nothing. What happens is if the cause for the search was insufficient, the case gets kicked out in court.

csomar 7y ago

I though the "reasonable suspicion" needs to be documented and so is the search. Otherwise, this law might reduce the number of searches but not the abuse of it.