5 ms·

From reading the directive it appears as though they don’t have an exemption for Americans: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PIA-CBP%20-%20

by jaarse 4y ago

From reading the directive it appears as though they don’t have an exemption for Americans: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PIA-CBP%20-%20Border-Searches-of-Electronic-Devices%20-January-2018%20-%20Compliant.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PIA-CBP... Of course the official response is what you would expect: “CBP officials declined, however, to answer questions about how many Americans’ phone records are in the database, how many searches have been run or how long the practice has gone on, saying it has made no additional statistics available “due to law enforcement sensitivities and national security implications.””

KMnO4 4y ago
> national security implications There’s nothing more American than spying on your own people and blaming it on terrorists.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  A government that doesn't keep good enough control if it's people will soon be overthrown. When you give the people more freedom to protest, organise, mass communicate easily etc, you also have to add equal amounts of monitoring and restrictions to make sure that next movement to overthrow the government can't pick up speed without you catching it.
  - thesuitonym 4y ago
    A government controlled by its people, instead of controlling its people, doesn't need to worry about being overthrown.
    - lazyier 4y ago
      Yeah, but that defeats the purpose of creating the state in the first place. The entire point is being able to tell people what to do for your own profit. It's a lot easier if you pretend you are doing it for the subject's benefit as it reduces the resistance to rule immensely. But you don't want to let that go too far or they start getting a big head and start thinking that paying you billions of dollars is optional.
      - unethical_ban 4y ago
        There are legitimate reasons for a State to exist.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    We wouldn’t want those pesky commies, ahh sorry, that was the 50s and 60s, those darn uppity negroes, ahh sorry again, my bad, that was civil rights era, those blasted … err, commies again? They made a comeback in the 80s it seems. Ahh there it is. We don’t want those crazy islamist terrorists harming our people. We need to protect your freedom … by curtailing it, of course. Sorry, sorry, I’ve just been informed, the boogieman is no longer islamic terrorists. Now, it’s called radical white supremacist qanon Jan 6 anti vax conspiracy incel nationalist. My bad. I apologise. But the curtailing of freedom will continue and the surveillance will increase. In order to safeguard our freedom and privacy, of course.
    - toss1 4y ago
      If you cannot see the difference between civil rights movements attempting to change governing to be more even-handed vs expansionist authoritarian governments or movements attempting to destroy democratic governments altogether, you need serious help (and should at least stop broadcasting your ignorance).
      - tristor 4y ago
        It's less about the difference between these groups and more about the response to these groups. It is your politics showing in your response rather than the person you are replying to... do you think they don't believe that Islamic terrorists exist (which they mentioned)? At no point in the history of the government national security apparatus has the target and its veracity made any difference in the trend line of the government doing more surveillance and curtailing more freedoms. Don't believe me? Do some research on COINTELPRO.
        toss1 4y ago
        Your argument, and that of many others here, seems to be that any govt surveillance is illegitimate, and that govt cannot have any legitimate reason to capture information on anyone. There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence operations. "It is your politics showing". Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it pops up here often. The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses that form a false justification for intelligence operations. This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates all of them. Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI operations, and many other excesses among the 17 intelligence agencies. I also note that these were ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds). I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for ending all intelligence, whether domestic or international. If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
- freeflight 4y ago
  Or make them spy on each other to find even more "terrorists" [0] [0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something
engineer_22 4y ago
It's tiring that "national security" is thrown around to justify stonewalling. Does anyone audit the "national security" excuse? An Ombudsman? Where does policing end and national security begin? Oh well, I'll buy a thin-blue-line flag for my lawn and sleep easy, trust the good-guys.
- pydry 4y ago
  Did this ever not happen? To fight these people you have to be some combination of powerful, morally spotless and willing to make great personal sacrifices - like Chelsea Manning.
  - engineer_22 4y ago
    The last 3 words were so unexpected...
xoa 4y ago
There is a split here between law and practicality for many people I guess. As a matter of law for US Citizens it doesn't matter whether there is an "exemption" or not: a US Citizen may not be denied entry at a land port of entry, period. Their property can potentially be taken but only with legal process and it can't be kept indefinitely without violation of law. If they're wanted for a crime they can of course be arrested from which the normal legal process within the US plays out, but all the normal requirements are there too. They can be asked additional questions and put through more inspection, but with citizenship established that's it. So if someone simply refuses to answer any questions or unlock their phone and there is no further reasonable cause there is nothing the CBP can legally do to keep them out. But as a practical matter most people don't want to spend an extra hour or hours or even extra minutes going through a more detailed search for contraband or whatever else. Most don't want to, aren't ready for and/or can't afford having electronic devices held for days/weeks before getting them back. A lot of people simply don't know their rights. So without an explicit exemption a lot of Americans undoubtedly would submit "voluntarily". So the ACLU isn't wrong (and their actual page is appropriately more nuanced [0]): Americans aren't "subject" in the legal sense to this, or to any other questions beyond what's needed to establish citizenship. Having done so they may politely insist on entry and refuse anything else, demand to see a supervisor if an agent persists in unconstitutional questioning, submit any property required while in response demanding receipts and pursuing complaints or legal action afterwards (or both), and at the end of the day the CBP must put up or shut up: let them through or arrest them, and for the latter will have to meet the legal standard and it'll all play out domestically. But at the same time the financial and other burdens this imposes are very real and serious. Best practice would be to go as "clean" through the border as possible, preferably with a dedicated phone that only has minimum necessary travel and navigation data on it and nothing else, no logging into any personal accounts of any kind, no bookmarks or the like, and cheap enough to not care about losing it. Then one can just let border agents look through whatever as much as they'd like, or let them take it and just write it off. Not everyone can or knows to even consider that possibility though. And of course the vast majority never have a problem, so it's insurance against a "black swan event" for the average person (those who suspect they'll be subject to heightened scrutiny legally or not may already do this). It's valuable to note both the exact state of the law and when the practical effect is different. ---- 0: ACLU: "If you are a U.S. citizen, you need only answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship, although refusing to answer routine questions about the nature and purpose of your travel could result in delay and/or further inspection." Or later "U.S. citizens have the right to enter the United States, so if you are a U.S. citizen and the officers’ questions become intrusive, you can decline to answer those questions, but you should be aware that doing so may result in delay and/or further inspection". So the ACLU does acknowledge a practical cost to insisting on your rights, they aren't merely blindly saying "not subject".

by jaarse 4y ago

KMnO4 4y ago

> national security implications There’s nothing more American than spying on your own people and blaming it on terrorists.

londons_explore 4y ago
A government that doesn't keep good enough control if it's people will soon be overthrown. When you give the people more freedom to protest, organise, mass communicate easily etc, you also have to add equal amounts of monitoring and restrictions to make sure that next movement to overthrow the government can't pick up speed without you catching it.
- thesuitonym 4y ago
  A government controlled by its people, instead of controlling its people, doesn't need to worry about being overthrown.
  - lazyier 4y ago
    Yeah, but that defeats the purpose of creating the state in the first place. The entire point is being able to tell people what to do for your own profit. It's a lot easier if you pretend you are doing it for the subject's benefit as it reduces the resistance to rule immensely. But you don't want to let that go too far or they start getting a big head and start thinking that paying you billions of dollars is optional.
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      There are legitimate reasons for a State to exist.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  We wouldn’t want those pesky commies, ahh sorry, that was the 50s and 60s, those darn uppity negroes, ahh sorry again, my bad, that was civil rights era, those blasted … err, commies again? They made a comeback in the 80s it seems. Ahh there it is. We don’t want those crazy islamist terrorists harming our people. We need to protect your freedom … by curtailing it, of course. Sorry, sorry, I’ve just been informed, the boogieman is no longer islamic terrorists. Now, it’s called radical white supremacist qanon Jan 6 anti vax conspiracy incel nationalist. My bad. I apologise. But the curtailing of freedom will continue and the surveillance will increase. In order to safeguard our freedom and privacy, of course.
  - toss1 4y ago
    If you cannot see the difference between civil rights movements attempting to change governing to be more even-handed vs expansionist authoritarian governments or movements attempting to destroy democratic governments altogether, you need serious help (and should at least stop broadcasting your ignorance).
    - tristor 4y ago
      It's less about the difference between these groups and more about the response to these groups. It is your politics showing in your response rather than the person you are replying to... do you think they don't believe that Islamic terrorists exist (which they mentioned)? At no point in the history of the government national security apparatus has the target and its veracity made any difference in the trend line of the government doing more surveillance and curtailing more freedoms. Don't believe me? Do some research on COINTELPRO.
      - toss1 4y ago
        Your argument, and that of many others here, seems to be that any govt surveillance is illegitimate, and that govt cannot have any legitimate reason to capture information on anyone. There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence operations. "It is your politics showing". Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it pops up here often. The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses that form a false justification for intelligence operations. This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates all of them. Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI operations, and many other excesses among the 17 intelligence agencies. I also note that these were ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds). I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for ending all intelligence, whether domestic or international. If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
freeflight 4y ago
Or make them spy on each other to find even more "terrorists" [0] [0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something

engineer_22 4y ago

It's tiring that "national security" is thrown around to justify stonewalling. Does anyone audit the "national security" excuse? An Ombudsman? Where does policing end and national security begin? Oh well, I'll buy a thin-blue-line flag for my lawn and sleep easy, trust the good-guys.

pydry 4y ago
Did this ever not happen? To fight these people you have to be some combination of powerful, morally spotless and willing to make great personal sacrifices - like Chelsea Manning.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  The last 3 words were so unexpected...

xoa 4y ago

There is a split here between law and practicality for many people I guess. As a matter of law for US Citizens it doesn't matter whether there is an "exemption" or not: a US Citizen may not be denied entry at a land port of entry, period. Their property can potentially be taken but only with legal process and it can't be kept indefinitely without violation of law. If they're wanted for a crime they can of course be arrested from which the normal legal process within the US plays out, but all the normal requirements are there too. They can be asked additional questions and put through more inspection, but with citizenship established that's it. So if someone simply refuses to answer any questions or unlock their phone and there is no further reasonable cause there is nothing the CBP can legally do to keep them out. But as a practical matter most people don't want to spend an extra hour or hours or even extra minutes going through a more detailed search for contraband or whatever else. Most don't want to, aren't ready for and/or can't afford having electronic devices held for days/weeks before getting them back. A lot of people simply don't know their rights. So without an explicit exemption a lot of Americans undoubtedly would submit "voluntarily". So the ACLU isn't wrong (and their actual page is appropriately more nuanced [0]): Americans aren't "subject" in the legal sense to this, or to any other questions beyond what's needed to establish citizenship. Having done so they may politely insist on entry and refuse anything else, demand to see a supervisor if an agent persists in unconstitutional questioning, submit any property required while in response demanding receipts and pursuing complaints or legal action afterwards (or both), and at the end of the day the CBP must put up or shut up: let them through or arrest them, and for the latter will have to meet the legal standard and it'll all play out domestically. But at the same time the financial and other burdens this imposes are very real and serious. Best practice would be to go as "clean" through the border as possible, preferably with a dedicated phone that only has minimum necessary travel and navigation data on it and nothing else, no logging into any personal accounts of any kind, no bookmarks or the like, and cheap enough to not care about losing it. Then one can just let border agents look through whatever as much as they'd like, or let them take it and just write it off. Not everyone can or knows to even consider that possibility though. And of course the vast majority never have a problem, so it's insurance against a "black swan event" for the average person (those who suspect they'll be subject to heightened scrutiny legally or not may already do this). It's valuable to note both the exact state of the law and when the practical effect is different. ---- 0: ACLU: "If you are a U.S. citizen, you need only answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship, although refusing to answer routine questions about the nature and purpose of your travel could result in delay and/or further inspection." Or later "U.S. citizens have the right to enter the United States, so if you are a U.S. citizen and the officers’ questions become intrusive, you can decline to answer those questions, but you should be aware that doing so may result in delay and/or further inspection". So the ACLU does acknowledge a practical cost to insisting on your rights, they aren't merely blindly saying "not subject".