4 ms·

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

• 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.
      • lstodd 3y ago
        Oh my god. So what if I intend to work in the US? This whole distinction is useless shit.
        • refurb 3y ago
          It’s illegal to work in the US (and most other countries) if you claim to enter for tourism.
        • NikolaNovak 3y ago
          That's an argument to be had but is extremely separate from this one. Each country has the right and privilege to determine who is allowed in and why. I may or may not like their choices but it's their right to make them. Most countries (this is empathically not some USA specific weirdness) make a significant distinction between those who want to enter temporarily to see the sights, vs those who want to enter more permanently, perform work, and thus engage themselves with the system more broadly (taxes, accident insurance, healthcare, what have you). While I personally 1. Think there should be more broad immigration into virtually every country but particularly mine and 2. Think border data searches are unreasonable, I think conflating the two detracts from either argument.
      • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > 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). But doing this is useless. It only works once. People who intend to work on a travel visa bring their work documents across the border, one of them gets caught, they object and take it to court. If the court says the search is allowed then it's henceforth public knowledge that it's allowed so people intending to do this stop physically carrying their documents across the border and instead transfer them over the internet. Already it's common guidance for anyone to do that even if you're not breaking any laws, because it keeps them from rifling through your life and detaining you while they force you to explain whatever nonsense false positives they may find. At which point the search is purely an inconvenience to innocent people and a trap for the unwary because anyone actually breaking the law can easily avoid physically transporting any incriminating documents across the border.
  • anonzzzies 3y ago
    I have been held up at the us and ca borders many times in my life for border patrol thinking I was coming there to work. It is all very presumed guilty work. The worst was travelling to aus where they made me prove I had enough money. Since that time I bring a clean phone, a special bank account for crap like this, no laptop and put on nice looking clothes. They just wave me in since that.
• RajT88 3y ago
  Christ. Highlights the problem with "Expert Witnesses", see the John Oliver episode on it.
• AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The legal theory is that the information on the device could be contraband. If you have a kilo of heroin you want to get from Mexico to Los Angeles, you cannot get it there without physically crossing the US border. You could be standing in the center of Nebraska, the only triply-landlocked state in the US and not with 100 miles of any border, and directly transfer arbitrary information via an encrypted connection from the International Space Station in orbit over the Indian Ocean on the other side of the planet. The point is that there is nothing special about physical proximity to the border with respect to information.
  • Mordisquitos 3y ago
    Furthermore, the very entrance of physical contraband can be argued to cause damage to the interests of the country or the wellbeing of its citizens. If the contraband is of legal items but evading tax, it is a net financial loss to the state. If the contraband is an illegal substance, it is a net loss of health & safety for its citizens. If the contraband is a lethal weapon, it is a net loss in terms of security. Subjecting travellers to searches for these items on entry, overriding the need for a warrant or probable cause, is thus defensible as a legitimate reduction of risk. On the contrary, searching an individual who is within the country without a warrant or probable cause cannot be argued to protect the country from any risk, given that if this person has these items then they are already there — the damage has been done. Now let's compare this argument with child pornography. The reason CP material is illegal is not because the material itself causes damages, but because its very existence requires causing damage to create it. Also, its posession —a proxy for its consumption— causes an incentive for more CP being produced and hence more damage. To put it bluntly, drugs are illegal because they are (ostensibly) damaging to the person and community that consume them. CP on the other hand is damaging to the victims and communities used to produce it. With that in mind, what interests of the state or society are being defended by warrantless search for CP on border entry? Without denying that a carrier of CP should hopefully be caught and put to trial, the damage is already done and will not be exacerbated by the entrance of CP into the country, nor will be reduced by stopping it. There is no valid argument for arbitrary spot-checks for CP at border crossings that could not equally be applied for arbitrary spot-checks for CP on citizens at any given moment. As a corollary though, I have to say that my argument justifying physical contraband border checks on entry due to the legitimate interests of the state does justify warrantless CP checks on the border... but only on leaving a country, not on entry. Making it harder for locally produced CP to leave a country can be argued to reduce the incentive for local production of CP, which would result in damage reduction.
• smeej 3y ago
  I hadn't heard this story, but I was impressed that the woman featured in the film actually flew in person to come to court to prove she was 19, not 13.
  • CameronNemo 3y ago
    The defendant might have payed for her transportation and meals. Free vacation for some testimony sounds like a decent incentive.