6 ms·

What I don't understand, and perhaps I'm trying to apply logic to things that are outside of it : The ostensible reason the border officers have these powers

What I don't understand, and perhaps I'm trying to apply logic to things that are outside of it : The ostensible reason the border officers have these powers is to protect the country. We don't want undesirable types allowed in (let's defer the fun of defining the undesirable types:). But... This feels like "real time process". You let somebody in or you don't. How does confiscating the phone and keeping it for five months aid in this? Is the assumption that any evil deed would take 6 months to execute? And that if we discovered something bad on the phone, five months later we'd have an easy time catching the owner? Basically,in which twilight universe is searching a phone off line for months part of border security prerogatives?? Is it not obvious to everybody involved that this search is for purposes, good bad or ugly, other than border protection? How is this not even addressed in any of these articles or rulings?

WanderPanda 3y ago
Also some parts of the border are overly secure (airports) while others aren't secured at all
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It's even sillier than that, because the point of searching something at the border is to identify contraband. Drugs or explosives or invasive plants. The border is not a chokepoint for information traveling between countries -- anyone who wants to transfer information internationally can just use the internet. So it makes no sense for the border to have any less strict of a warrant requirement for the information content of a device than there is anywhere else.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Ostensibly I assume point of the search is not to filter data,but to examine the data for evidence of malicious intent to sent entry. But again, taking five months to do it... Seems implausible.
- Zak 3y ago
  The legal theory is that the information on the device could be contraband. Indeed, some people have been caught and prosecuted for bringing devices containing child pornography (or adult pornography officials decided must be child pornography[0]) across borders even in the internet era. I do think the law should be updated, but I imagine it being a non-starter politically right now. [0] https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/ https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom...
  - NikolaNovak 3y ago
    Jeebus. That article is both depressing and infuriating ;-(
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    Ah yes the CSAM exemption: your encrypted data might be a crime, so I have to read it. Maybe we should just assume that potentially illegal encrypted data is not worth searching foreigners on the border. Again, if someone wanted to share CSAM, why would they not just use the internet?
  - refurb 3y ago
    It’s not just contraband information, but also information that can validate a persons answers when examined for entry into the country. It’s not rare that someone’s phone is examined entering US/Canada for tourism to see if they are going to work illegally. But I do agree that carte blanche access to the entire contents of a phone seems overboard. There should be some safe guards that limit access to private information.
    - Zak 3y ago
      That is a clear overreach. No doubt that's often what they're going for, but that's not the nominal purpose of searching property at the border.
      - refurb 3y ago
        It absolutely is one of the purposes of a physical search. They can search your physical property to see if there is evidence you plan to work in the US or are lying about your intentions for entering the US (all countries do this). People have been denied entry because they bring work documents while saying they are entering the US for tourist purposes. I don’t disagree that search of electronic devices should be a higher bar, but physical searches to determine intent to enter has always been in immigrations remit.
css 3y ago
Courts are adverse to addressing key issues because they want to avoid creating precedent.
- coliveira 3y ago
  A big disadvantage of the common law system used in the Anglo sphere. Most countries don't have a system where judicial decisions create precedent.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Why would they want to avoid that? Isn't creating precedent basically their job?
  - newjersey 3y ago
    No, in a functioning democracy, it is the job of the legislature to write laws. However, looks like we can barely pass a budget most years. I saw Jeff Jackson from North Carolina say on tick tock that it is likely that we won’t even be able to do that on time this year.
  - catlover76 3y ago
    Sort of, but typically, most judges who aren't on the Supreme Court or a state's highest court pretend like it isn't part of the job at all.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
grecy 3y ago
Another interesting point - US citizens can not be denied entry to the US. (In fact, no citizen of any country can be denied entry to their country of citizenship). Of course they can admit a citizen then immediately arrest that citizen, but they can't deny entry.
- VicVacVok 3y ago
  > In fact, no citizen of any country can be denied entry to their country of citizenship This seems like splitting hairs—it's not called denying entry, it's called revoking citizenship.
  - chii 3y ago
    Splitting hairs on the hair splitting - a country cannot revoke someone's citizenship if doing so leaves them stateless. At least, this is the UN convention of human rights apparently. Of course, in reality, the country doesn't deny entrance, but could just as easily detain upon entree.
    - isaacremuant 3y ago
      You're right but sometimes they try to argue that they belong to some other state like the UK did in "Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021]"
    - technothrasher 3y ago
      There are plenty of countries who have not signed on to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, including the US. So, yes, you can be left stateless by the US revoking your citizenship. However, pretty much only treason or voluntary renouncement could potentially lead to such a situation, and treason hasn't been charged in the US since the immediate aftermath of WWII.
- devwastaken 3y ago
  The U.S. border does and will refuse entry if you do not have proper identification.
VicVacVok 3y ago
> The ostensible reason the border officers have these powers is to protect the country. I was gonna say "nafta"—hard to keep labor cheap if people are just gonna move north. The arbitrary cruelty is just another tool in the toolbox.
isaacremuant 3y ago
> How is this not even addressed in any of these articles or rulings? Because people have been taught that they need to be authoritarian or else. If you question authority you're a conspiracy theorist and we need to investigate you and harm you. Trust the government designated experts. You don't get to decide who are the experts. Experts who don't agree with the government are also conspiracy theorists. Now it's far too late to have honest conversations, even with very unpopular stuff because people are ready to have a knee jerk reaction to if "forbidden topic/opinion" comes up. Security theater and hygiene theater are great examples.
neuralRiot 3y ago
The root problem of this is the same as any oher law enforcement agency (or workplace we might even say) is that their main purpose is not solving or deterring any crime but just to show that they’re trying.

WanderPanda 3y ago

Also some parts of the border are overly secure (airports) while others aren't secured at all

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

It's even sillier than that, because the point of searching something at the border is to identify contraband. Drugs or explosives or invasive plants. The border is not a chokepoint for information traveling between countries -- anyone who wants to transfer information internationally can just use the internet. So it makes no sense for the border to have any less strict of a warrant requirement for the information content of a device than there is anywhere else.

NikolaNovak 3y ago
Ostensibly I assume point of the search is not to filter data,but to examine the data for evidence of malicious intent to sent entry. But again, taking five months to do it... Seems implausible.
Zak 3y ago
The legal theory is that the information on the device could be contraband. Indeed, some people have been caught and prosecuted for bringing devices containing child pornography (or adult pornography officials decided must be child pornography[0]) across borders even in the internet era. I do think the law should be updated, but I imagine it being a non-starter politically right now. [0] https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/ https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom...
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Jeebus. That article is both depressing and infuriating ;-(
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  Ah yes the CSAM exemption: your encrypted data might be a crime, so I have to read it. Maybe we should just assume that potentially illegal encrypted data is not worth searching foreigners on the border. Again, if someone wanted to share CSAM, why would they not just use the internet?
- refurb 3y ago
  It’s not just contraband information, but also information that can validate a persons answers when examined for entry into the country. It’s not rare that someone’s phone is examined entering US/Canada for tourism to see if they are going to work illegally. But I do agree that carte blanche access to the entire contents of a phone seems overboard. There should be some safe guards that limit access to private information.
  - Zak 3y ago
    That is a clear overreach. No doubt that's often what they're going for, but that's not the nominal purpose of searching property at the border.
    - refurb 3y ago
      It absolutely is one of the purposes of a physical search. They can search your physical property to see if there is evidence you plan to work in the US or are lying about your intentions for entering the US (all countries do this). People have been denied entry because they bring work documents while saying they are entering the US for tourist purposes. I don’t disagree that search of electronic devices should be a higher bar, but physical searches to determine intent to enter has always been in immigrations remit.

css 3y ago

Courts are adverse to addressing key issues because they want to avoid creating precedent.

coliveira 3y ago
A big disadvantage of the common law system used in the Anglo sphere. Most countries don't have a system where judicial decisions create precedent.
fallingknife 3y ago
Why would they want to avoid that? Isn't creating precedent basically their job?
- newjersey 3y ago
  No, in a functioning democracy, it is the job of the legislature to write laws. However, looks like we can barely pass a budget most years. I saw Jeff Jackson from North Carolina say on tick tock that it is likely that we won’t even be able to do that on time this year.
- catlover76 3y ago
  Sort of, but typically, most judges who aren't on the Supreme Court or a state's highest court pretend like it isn't part of the job at all.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

grecy 3y ago

Another interesting point - US citizens can not be denied entry to the US. (In fact, no citizen of any country can be denied entry to their country of citizenship). Of course they can admit a citizen then immediately arrest that citizen, but they can't deny entry.

VicVacVok 3y ago
> In fact, no citizen of any country can be denied entry to their country of citizenship This seems like splitting hairs—it's not called denying entry, it's called revoking citizenship.
- chii 3y ago
  Splitting hairs on the hair splitting - a country cannot revoke someone's citizenship if doing so leaves them stateless. At least, this is the UN convention of human rights apparently. Of course, in reality, the country doesn't deny entrance, but could just as easily detain upon entree.
  - isaacremuant 3y ago
    You're right but sometimes they try to argue that they belong to some other state like the UK did in "Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021]"
  - technothrasher 3y ago
    There are plenty of countries who have not signed on to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, including the US. So, yes, you can be left stateless by the US revoking your citizenship. However, pretty much only treason or voluntary renouncement could potentially lead to such a situation, and treason hasn't been charged in the US since the immediate aftermath of WWII.
devwastaken 3y ago
The U.S. border does and will refuse entry if you do not have proper identification.

VicVacVok 3y ago

> The ostensible reason the border officers have these powers is to protect the country. I was gonna say "nafta"—hard to keep labor cheap if people are just gonna move north. The arbitrary cruelty is just another tool in the toolbox.

isaacremuant 3y ago

> How is this not even addressed in any of these articles or rulings? Because people have been taught that they need to be authoritarian or else. If you question authority you're a conspiracy theorist and we need to investigate you and harm you. Trust the government designated experts. You don't get to decide who are the experts. Experts who don't agree with the government are also conspiracy theorists. Now it's far too late to have honest conversations, even with very unpopular stuff because people are ready to have a knee jerk reaction to if "forbidden topic/opinion" comes up. Security theater and hygiene theater are great examples.

neuralRiot 3y ago

The root problem of this is the same as any oher law enforcement agency (or workplace we might even say) is that their main purpose is not solving or deterring any crime but just to show that they’re trying.