6 ms·

The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here is the one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular case: https://gizmodo.com/border-agent-deman

The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here is the one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular case: https://gizmodo.com/border-agent-demands-nasa-scientist-unlock-phone-before-1792275942 https://gizmodo.com/border-agent-demands-nasa-scientist-unlo...

xoa 4y ago
>The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here is the one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular case: The ACLU is not wrong, if you actually read their actual words. Your case doesn't say what you think it does. From your own article: >Bikkannavar insisted that he wasn’t allowed to do that because the phone belonged to NASA’s JPL and he’s required to protect access. Agents insisted and he finally relented. As far as the law is concerned, he voluntarily let them look at it. It doesn't matter if they "insisted", he could have told them to pound sand. They could have kept the phone, but in its locked state it presumably wouldn't be that useful, and particularly since it wasn't merely a personal device JPL's legal department then could have easily gone right after them for it and won. Just because we have the legal right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them and potentially going to court. The very next paragraph states: >Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they have an obligation to help the agents. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone,” she says. Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly ask that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean citizens must comply.
- oneplane 4y ago
  That sounds great when typing it up on the internet in a comfortable chair, but when a few power hungry workers with guns are breathing down your neck in a small room you can't get out of, the rules aren't going to make you feel 'safe'.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    Eh, right are only rights if they are enforced and/or asserted. If neither is done, at best, they are forgotten and wither and at worst become a quaint memory of things that were. The rules exist for a reason. They also exist for people with guns; especially for people that do it on behalf of government. If you are afraid of guns from people in uniform, you are already doing it wrong. I will tell you this as an interesting little factoid. In Israel guns are everywhere, but you are responsible for every single bullet.
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      I have often wondered why gun control advocates in the US haven't taken the ammunition approach. Is there some precedent in the courts that limitations on ammunition are equivalent to those on the firearms themselves? I.E. ammunition commonly used for legal purposes cannot be banned?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        In a sense, steps have been taken to do just that, but not in courts. I am not a proponent of those efforts, but it is important to understand what is going on. Various payment systems are currently trying coordinate in a way to track those purchases. Naturally, once they are tracked, they eventually will be marked as risky and, in banks anyway, derisked in a typical bank fashion. The same approach is taken for porn. And to all that cheer this one, because you happen to align with those values, remember that a tool is just a tool and can be used by anyone for anything.
        galangalalgol 4y ago
- xnyan 4y ago
  >Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no" This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one - people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified immunity means as long as the LEO says they believed they were following rules (even if they were not), then they can do anything they want to you (including kill you) with little to no personal consequences. In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life, I need to break your car windows and throw you on the street" It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the police officer was convicted of a crime. Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    > people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Can you cite any examples of this happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case like this.
    - lisper 4y ago
      He did cite an example: George Floyd. You really ought to read the comment you are replying to more carefully. (And you have to be pretty profoundly ignorant of current events not to already be aware of this.)
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        I did read it. Floyd wasn’t killed while refusing an unlawful search, which is specifically what I’m asking about.
        lisper 4y ago
- throwoutway 4y ago
  Let me know how successful you are crossing the border and getting home when you tell CBP to “pound sand”. They’ll just deny you entry and you’re left with very little recourse. Effectively they are the judge and jury and you’re stuck in the waiting area if you’re lucky, a holding cell if you’re not If you think you’re immune just because you’re a US citizen, you’re not.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    Constitution is suspended within 100 miles of the border. Worst day of Google Mapping ever.
  - refurb 4y ago
    This is false. A friend came back to the US after 3 years. A time period you typically lose your green card. However friend was smart to ask a lawyer and the lawyer said “agree to nothing, sign nothing, only a judge can take your green card”. So she did just that. Put up with about an hour of shit. “No, im not signing anything”, “No, I don’t agree that I’m no longer a permanent resident of the US”. Was eventually let in and nothing came of it. Know your rights and stand firm. If some non-us citizen minority woman can do it, I’m sure you can too.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I'm shocked it went that well for her. I've had agents simply lie on their report, including lying to (and waking up) a federal judge and US assistant attorney in the search warrant DHS got for me. Also had them lie to me and tell me I wasn't permitted to enter the US with my US passport. I'm quite certain if she had dealt with some of the agents I dealt with they simply would have lied or signed the form for her and kicked her out of the country. If they would have simply taken the green card from her and said "good fuckin luck" it would have been a hell of a road getting it back after being gone 3 years. Either way good on her for calling the bluff.
      - anon291 4y ago
        Native born Americans of non immigrant parents are incredibly afraid of the us government. Growing up in a family that came to this country, you're very disabused of the notion these agents have much power. For most of them it's a power trip. Once you understand that, you will figure out what to say. You have to understand that they know they're lying to you but it makes them feel powerful. Play into it. Let them feel the rush of power but remain firm in your goals.
- mindslight 4y ago
  > Just because we have the legal right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them and potentially going to court This is a major flaw in our system, and desperately needs legal reform. LEOs should only be allowed to ask people to do things that they can be legally compelled to do. Acting outside of that authority to coerce other actions should be charged equivalent to impersonating a police officer, kidnapping, or logically similar - the same as if a non-police dressed up in a police costume to coerce someone. This is of course in addition to the need to make longstanding laws like the ones against murder apply to LEOs as well. Not that I expect much to ever change. I've got to wonder what our society would be like if Hollywood hadn't leaned into "police procedural" for its cheap production cost. How many hours per week does the average American watch people pointing guns at one another and barking orders? It nowhere reflects real life, yet we've all been primed to think that's how the world operates.

xoa 4y ago

>The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here is the one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular case: The ACLU is not wrong, if you actually read their actual words. Your case doesn't say what you think it does. From your own article: >Bikkannavar insisted that he wasn’t allowed to do that because the phone belonged to NASA’s JPL and he’s required to protect access. Agents insisted and he finally relented. As far as the law is concerned, he voluntarily let them look at it. It doesn't matter if they "insisted", he could have told them to pound sand. They could have kept the phone, but in its locked state it presumably wouldn't be that useful, and particularly since it wasn't merely a personal device JPL's legal department then could have easily gone right after them for it and won. Just because we have the legal right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them and potentially going to court. The very next paragraph states: >Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they have an obligation to help the agents. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone,” she says. Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly ask that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean citizens must comply.

oneplane 4y ago
That sounds great when typing it up on the internet in a comfortable chair, but when a few power hungry workers with guns are breathing down your neck in a small room you can't get out of, the rules aren't going to make you feel 'safe'.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Eh, right are only rights if they are enforced and/or asserted. If neither is done, at best, they are forgotten and wither and at worst become a quaint memory of things that were. The rules exist for a reason. They also exist for people with guns; especially for people that do it on behalf of government. If you are afraid of guns from people in uniform, you are already doing it wrong. I will tell you this as an interesting little factoid. In Israel guns are everywhere, but you are responsible for every single bullet.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    I have often wondered why gun control advocates in the US haven't taken the ammunition approach. Is there some precedent in the courts that limitations on ammunition are equivalent to those on the firearms themselves? I.E. ammunition commonly used for legal purposes cannot be banned?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      In a sense, steps have been taken to do just that, but not in courts. I am not a proponent of those efforts, but it is important to understand what is going on. Various payment systems are currently trying coordinate in a way to track those purchases. Naturally, once they are tracked, they eventually will be marked as risky and, in banks anyway, derisked in a typical bank fashion. The same approach is taken for porn. And to all that cheer this one, because you happen to align with those values, remember that a tool is just a tool and can be used by anyone for anything.
      - galangalalgol 4y ago
xnyan 4y ago
>Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no" This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one - people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified immunity means as long as the LEO says they believed they were following rules (even if they were not), then they can do anything they want to you (including kill you) with little to no personal consequences. In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life, I need to break your car windows and throw you on the street" It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the police officer was convicted of a crime. Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Can you cite any examples of this happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case like this.
  - lisper 4y ago
    He did cite an example: George Floyd. You really ought to read the comment you are replying to more carefully. (And you have to be pretty profoundly ignorant of current events not to already be aware of this.)
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      I did read it. Floyd wasn’t killed while refusing an unlawful search, which is specifically what I’m asking about.
      - lisper 4y ago
throwoutway 4y ago
Let me know how successful you are crossing the border and getting home when you tell CBP to “pound sand”. They’ll just deny you entry and you’re left with very little recourse. Effectively they are the judge and jury and you’re stuck in the waiting area if you’re lucky, a holding cell if you’re not If you think you’re immune just because you’re a US citizen, you’re not.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  Constitution is suspended within 100 miles of the border. Worst day of Google Mapping ever.
- refurb 4y ago
  This is false. A friend came back to the US after 3 years. A time period you typically lose your green card. However friend was smart to ask a lawyer and the lawyer said “agree to nothing, sign nothing, only a judge can take your green card”. So she did just that. Put up with about an hour of shit. “No, im not signing anything”, “No, I don’t agree that I’m no longer a permanent resident of the US”. Was eventually let in and nothing came of it. Know your rights and stand firm. If some non-us citizen minority woman can do it, I’m sure you can too.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I'm shocked it went that well for her. I've had agents simply lie on their report, including lying to (and waking up) a federal judge and US assistant attorney in the search warrant DHS got for me. Also had them lie to me and tell me I wasn't permitted to enter the US with my US passport. I'm quite certain if she had dealt with some of the agents I dealt with they simply would have lied or signed the form for her and kicked her out of the country. If they would have simply taken the green card from her and said "good fuckin luck" it would have been a hell of a road getting it back after being gone 3 years. Either way good on her for calling the bluff.
    - anon291 4y ago
      Native born Americans of non immigrant parents are incredibly afraid of the us government. Growing up in a family that came to this country, you're very disabused of the notion these agents have much power. For most of them it's a power trip. Once you understand that, you will figure out what to say. You have to understand that they know they're lying to you but it makes them feel powerful. Play into it. Let them feel the rush of power but remain firm in your goals.
mindslight 4y ago
> Just because we have the legal right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them and potentially going to court This is a major flaw in our system, and desperately needs legal reform. LEOs should only be allowed to ask people to do things that they can be legally compelled to do. Acting outside of that authority to coerce other actions should be charged equivalent to impersonating a police officer, kidnapping, or logically similar - the same as if a non-police dressed up in a police costume to coerce someone. This is of course in addition to the need to make longstanding laws like the ones against murder apply to LEOs as well. Not that I expect much to ever change. I've got to wonder what our society would be like if Hollywood hadn't leaned into "police procedural" for its cheap production cost. How many hours per week does the average American watch people pointing guns at one another and barking orders? It nowhere reflects real life, yet we've all been primed to think that's how the world operates.