4 ms·
> First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch presided over the case. In her ruling, she wrote that “electronic device searches do not fit neatly into other categories of
by naebother 6y ago
> First Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch presided over the case. In her ruling, she wrote that “electronic device searches do not fit neatly into other categories of property searches, but the bottom line is that basic border searches of electronic devices do not involve an intrusive search of a person.”
What? No. Judges can just say whatever, huh? There's a reason why every phone/laptop has some form of lock on it. Because it would be intrusive if someone went inside. Just like a house with a lock. You could argue (incorrectly, imo) that we need to perform intrusive searches at the border, but you sound like a clown when you say it's not intrusive at all.
- tehwebguy 6y agoGood time to remind everyone that judges are literally just attorneys that a) won an election or b) were appointed. This one was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and will continue in her position until she dies or retires. The only option for removal is impeachment by the house and removal by the senate, which will absolutely not happen.
- nickff 6y agoYour car has many locks, yet CBP can basically disassemble it if they want to. The judge must mean intrusive in the sense of a violation of your person (or something to that effect).
- naebother 6y ago> The judge must mean intrusive in the sense of a violation of your person (or something to that effect). My car does not store private digital information. Well, the infotainment/GPS system might have a record of where I've been, but if CBP wants to collect that every time I cross the border that seems excessive. My phone/laptop has a lot more sensitive information than that and looking at that most certainly is "a violation of your person". You might not be physically violating me, but it's still a violation as codified in various other laws on transmuting/accessing digital information without consent. The bottom line is, if you want complete access to my digital life get a warrant from one of the many rubber-stamp judges at your disposal. If you can't even be bothered to that much, I don't think you actually need my information but just want an intimidation tool.
- nickff 6y agoI don't like the current state of the law, but it makes sense. The law isn't what we'd like it to be, it's a self-supporting artifice constructed by legislators, lawyers, and judges (many of whom wear multiple hats through their careers).