7 ms·
As someone who lives in a border cities and crosses often, thank fuck. Now do "They can't make you sit in secondary area/room for two hours without looking at
by lannisterstark 3y ago
As someone who lives in a border cities and crosses often, thank fuck.
Now do "They can't make you sit in secondary area/room for two hours without looking at you."
- EA-3167 3y agoAs someone far from any border, let me join in you a hearty "thank fuck" as well. This always seemed like a terrible and deeply unAmerican thing for the government to engage in. I'm all for oversight, including some that many find overbearing, but warrantless searches of your devices just for crossing a border is some post-9/11 hysterical nonsense.
- lannisterstark 3y ago>some post-9/11 hysterical nonsense. That's because it is lol. Remember this incident? Fun stuff. https://web.archive.org/web/20230421210739/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230421210739/https://www.theat... "A NASA Engineer Was Required to Unlock His Phone at the Border A U.S.-born scientist was detained at the Houston airport until he gave customs agents the passcode to his work-issued device."
- sidewndr46 3y agoWouldn't that be a violation of NASA policy and possibly some other Federal agency policies?
- reaperman 3y agoYeah but kind of force majeure at that point.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoHow long can they detain you for? Foreigners i understand... either give the passcode or go back home... but local citizens? (i've argued more than once at my countries border, and there's not much that they can do)
- bumby 3y agoConstitutional due process in the United States applies to both citizens and non citizens alike.
- wrycoder 3y agoRecent events cause me to sincerely doubt that.
- bumby 3y agoI think your referring to de facto, my statement was about de jure.
- kelnos 3y agoIn theory, yes. But in reality, a non-citizen has much more to lose (being denied entry, which is a stain that remains on your record for quite some time) from arguing with a CBP officer about their rights than a citizen does. The law is irrelevant when LEOs can side-step it whenever they want.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bumby 3y agoThis goes for any law, citizen or not. Equal protection does not mean equality of costs. Some people will have more to lose by fighting a traffic ticket in court. It doesn’t mean they have less rights to do so. Saying the system is structured to be unfair is a different argument than saying the system doesn’t afford the same rights.
- dylan604 3y agoYou don't even have to be crossing a border. There's an area some 100 mile distance from the border that the CBP operates. It just so happens that a large percentage of the population resides in that area, so it can affect more people than immediately realized. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
- Zak 3y agoThe page you linked says that they need probable cause to search any property within the zone. That's different from when actually crossing a border, in which case property is generally subject to search without suspicion.
- dylan604 3y agoprobable cause is whatever they say it is, so that's really not much of a show stopper. the only way you can prove it is not proper probable cause is through a lengthy (aka expensive) court battle after the fact.
- kube-system 3y agoGoing to court is the only way you can prove any legal wrongdoing made by anyone about anything.
- dylan604 3y agosure, but leaning on probable cause to prevent the LEOs from doing something to you in the moment is not a sound practice. it will always be retrospective, and not everyone can afford to avail themselves of the legal remedy. the LEOs know this and behave accordingly
- Matl 3y agoExcept 'probable cause' means that the search was in 'good faith' which is my understanding basically makes the officers involved practically immune, (even if you're awarded damages say), and at the very least makes it more likely to happen by them knowing they're off the hook either way.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoIt far predates 2001, key case law is from the 70's: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-v-ramsey https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u...
- RajT88 3y agoSame. 100 miles from the shores of Lake Michigan puts you upwards of 7 hours drive from the Canadian border. That's just bonkers.
- askin4it 3y agounAmerican... I'm American. I've always liked this way of describing things that we don't like. It somehow (to me) implies something. Maybe I don't know what that is, but it seems mostly anti-bad. If anyone wants to hate on me, I think that HuAC was tragically misrepresented to the public, and the Hollywood blacklists should have been longer and wider. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it. Many of the jokers that ended up there were acting very irresponsibly and as if there were no consequences for their actions. The actions being a hidden alignment with an internationalist organization actively seeking to undermine the USA from within. (Something we can accomplish without any outside help.)
- fishywang 3y agoBecause all international airports are "borders", and previously the warranty-less searches were permitted with something like "within 50 miles of a border", the majority people living in the US should say thank fuck.
- dylan604 3y agoI just replied to a sibling about the CBP's 100 mile zone (i'll post here again). For some reason, the airports do not seem to be mapped as part of this 100 "inclusion" zone. Otherwise, the included population would approach 100%. That's a bit of trivia I've never seen addressed before, so adding that to the list of things that make you go hmmm https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
- johncessna 3y agoI'm not saying it's wrong or right, but this isn't not too surprising is it? Access out of an airport is tightly controlled whereas the border isn't.
- tptacek 3y agoIt has never been the case that 100 (or 50) mile ranges from the border are open to warrantless searches; it's a myth spread by a misleading bit of ACLU promo material.
- bumby 3y agoFrom u/WillPostForFood's link: "This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself."
- darth_avocado 3y agoThat’s not true. CBP has plenty of permanent and many more tactical search checkpoints throughout the country where you are subject to search. Many of these are 70+ miles from the border. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_interior_checkpoints https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_...
- usernew 3y ago[flagged]
- tga_d 3y ago[flagged]
- usernew 3y ago[flagged]
- tga_d 3y ago[flagged]
- usernew 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- usernew 3y ago[dead]
- rationalist 3y agoIf you could do that without insulting the people, even if you don't mean it, then that would be hilarious. I have no problem with you playing that game with the system, but they are still real people that you're interacting with.