4 ms·

The border agents didn't act in good faith, regardless of what they're empowered to do. They wanted the data for one reason and fabricated another to prompt the

by cdrnsf 3mo ago

The border agents didn't act in good faith, regardless of what they're empowered to do. They wanted the data for one reason and fabricated another to prompt the device search. The data they were interested in pertained to protest activity protected under the constitution but the lie they told was about something criminal. That anything within 100 miles of the border is constitution free tosses that out, I guess, but is extremely problematic on its own.

deepsun 3mo ago
Interesting that all that rules don't apply to water. The moment you stepped on a boat, coastal guard can (and do regularly) board it and conduct a search without any reasoning. They don't need any probable causes, warrants, nothing. Seems like so far it didn't create any problems, so public is ok with that.
- tsimionescu 3mo ago
  The same is true at any border crossing - you have to submit to searches by CBP agents, who don't need any probable cause. I believe device searches are still a somewhat greyer area, at least if password protected (as providing a password would be compelled speech, unlike a luggage search which can be conducted without any action from your part).
  - john_strinlai 3mo ago
    >as providing a password would be compelled speech which is a good reminder for anyone with reason to be concerned about this sort of thing to turn off biometric/face id/etc. access to their devices.
    - akimbostrawman 3mo ago
      that's why GrapheneOS has biometric+pin
    - nickthegreek 3mo ago
      on iphone - tap power button 5 times.
  - convolvatron 3mo ago
    in autistic-land, doesn't it seem like the power to perform searches by border police should be directed related and limited to their function - that is the inspection of material goods to insure that (a) illegal smuggling isn't taking place and (b) the proper import taxes have been paid. unless the phone itself is a suspicious good, there should never be any justification for a border officer to demand visibility of the contents of the phone, or the data that its permitted to access on other systems. I presume the counter to this is that they must be able to examine the socials in order to see if you should 'death to america' on message boards. is that really an important vector? is the balance of that security concern versus speech rights (which are supposed to be 'universal') something we want individual field officers to decide?
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tsimionescu 3mo ago
      I think one of their main justifications for claiming a right to inspect your phone is the possibility that you could be carrying illegal data on it, such as CSAM (which they apparently invoked in this particular case). Since they generally can inspect your luggage to check if you're crossing the border with illegal goods, this seems somewhat plausible as a legal interpretation. Personally, I believe that there should be explicit laws protecting your personal devices, given the amount of sensitive private information they carry. I think an explicit law, or even amendment to the constitution, would be much better than relying on ever more arcane legal interpretations being invented by judges based on vague wording and vague principles.
      - TheCoelacanth 3mo ago
        That's nonsense because it's trivial to move data internationally without ever crossing a physical border. There is no reason for anyone to ever try to smuggle digital data through a border crossing and so zero justification for ever conducting a digital search at the border.
        3mo ago
- niam 3mo ago
  Interesting that the distinction between phones and boats was not enough to dissuade whatever point it is that you're trying to make. From Chief Justice Roberts in Riley v. California: "One of the most notable distinguishing features of modern cell phones is their immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and tended as a general matter to constitute only a narrow intrusion on privacy."
  - deepsun 3mo ago
    My point is: why don't anyone makes a fuss over water searches the same way as airports? It's been like that forever. There are reddit discussions about water searches, but never on HN or any news. To. Me it seems interesting discrepancy.
lorreyfum 3mo ago
[flagged]
- pc86 3mo ago
  What is the point you're trying to make?
  - remashedspood 3mo ago
    Fascism
  - lorreyfum 3mo ago
    I know it’s weird for the tendies here, but both sides have to follow the law and respect the law. Not a hard concept. That’s why we have laws. If you don’t like the laws where you are, move to a place that has laws compatible with your views.
    - AlexeyBelov 3mo ago
      > I know it’s weird for the tendies here Review the guidelines.
  - lorreyfum 3mo ago
    That here on ycombinator saying to follow the law gets you downvoted and flagged. Let that sink in.
- antonvs 3mo ago
  Which law is that? It's true that border agents need to follow the law, unlike these ones.
- AtlasBarfed 3mo ago
  I passed the law that your existence is illegal. Follow it
  - lorreyfum 3mo ago
Zak 3mo ago
> That anything within 100 miles of the border is constitution free tosses that out That's a misconception. Border/immigration agents can operate inside this zone, including making stops with reasonable suspicion or running checkpoints where everyone is stopped with no suspicion. The checkpoints are limited in scope, and do not provide authority for searching electronic devices. Some people, including a couple dissenting supreme court justices do feel the checkpoint part violates the constitution. That's distinct from the border search exemption, which allows inspection of everyone and everything crossing the border. It only exists when someone is actually crossing the border and does not allow CBP to stop or search people who are not crossing the border. Edit: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
mannanj 3mo ago
I'd heard in another article around this, that in this particular situation they had said it was a routine border search. Not even something criminal, just routine procedure. Then that under neath all that they did in fact suspect something criminal and were using the standard stop as a pretext for criminal investigation is the constitutional violation.
- il-b 3mo ago
  “Your phone smells like weed”
milesvp 3mo ago
Having lived near the US border most my life, the way it was explained to me years ago, is that there is a strip of land at the border crossing, where you are in neither country. In this space, you are not privy to any of the protections you would be allowed were you in either the US or Canada. This is where you are taken when you are forced to leave your car. Part of the current controversy is that the US government is trying to treat this literal no man’s land as both international land as as federal land with the disparate charges they are applying. Fun fact. Lack of parking is not a legitimate reason to attempt to drive past this region. I was once flagged crossing into canada on a day they were interviewing a lot of travelers. I spotted parking in what looked to me like an overflow lot on the other side of a fence, and when I slowly drove that direction sirens blasted and guns were drawn. Nothing gives you clarity like a gun pointed at you.
- abduhl 3mo ago
  Whoever explained this to you has done you a terrible disservice. The border is the border - on one side you are in the USA and on the other side you are outside it. If there was a strip of land where you are not in a country then how can CBP assert any authority? No, you must be in America. There is no "no man's land," and there is no such thing as "international land" at America's borders where no law exists.
  - duttish 3mo ago
    Related anecdote, there is a strip of international land between Egypt and Sudan, neither country wants it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil
    - joemi 2mo ago
      No-man's-lands exist (a very obvious one is the DMZ between North Korea and South Korea), but I believe the specific point was that no-man's-lands don't exist at the US borders.
- jamwil 3mo ago

by cdrnsf 3mo ago

deepsun 3mo ago

Interesting that all that rules don't apply to water. The moment you stepped on a boat, coastal guard can (and do regularly) board it and conduct a search without any reasoning. They don't need any probable causes, warrants, nothing. Seems like so far it didn't create any problems, so public is ok with that.

tsimionescu 3mo ago
The same is true at any border crossing - you have to submit to searches by CBP agents, who don't need any probable cause. I believe device searches are still a somewhat greyer area, at least if password protected (as providing a password would be compelled speech, unlike a luggage search which can be conducted without any action from your part).
- john_strinlai 3mo ago
  >as providing a password would be compelled speech which is a good reminder for anyone with reason to be concerned about this sort of thing to turn off biometric/face id/etc. access to their devices.
  - akimbostrawman 3mo ago
    that's why GrapheneOS has biometric+pin
  - nickthegreek 3mo ago
    on iphone - tap power button 5 times.
- convolvatron 3mo ago
  in autistic-land, doesn't it seem like the power to perform searches by border police should be directed related and limited to their function - that is the inspection of material goods to insure that (a) illegal smuggling isn't taking place and (b) the proper import taxes have been paid. unless the phone itself is a suspicious good, there should never be any justification for a border officer to demand visibility of the contents of the phone, or the data that its permitted to access on other systems. I presume the counter to this is that they must be able to examine the socials in order to see if you should 'death to america' on message boards. is that really an important vector? is the balance of that security concern versus speech rights (which are supposed to be 'universal') something we want individual field officers to decide?
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 3mo ago
    I think one of their main justifications for claiming a right to inspect your phone is the possibility that you could be carrying illegal data on it, such as CSAM (which they apparently invoked in this particular case). Since they generally can inspect your luggage to check if you're crossing the border with illegal goods, this seems somewhat plausible as a legal interpretation. Personally, I believe that there should be explicit laws protecting your personal devices, given the amount of sensitive private information they carry. I think an explicit law, or even amendment to the constitution, would be much better than relying on ever more arcane legal interpretations being invented by judges based on vague wording and vague principles.
    - TheCoelacanth 3mo ago
      That's nonsense because it's trivial to move data internationally without ever crossing a physical border. There is no reason for anyone to ever try to smuggle digital data through a border crossing and so zero justification for ever conducting a digital search at the border.
      - 3mo ago
niam 3mo ago
Interesting that the distinction between phones and boats was not enough to dissuade whatever point it is that you're trying to make. From Chief Justice Roberts in Riley v. California: "One of the most notable distinguishing features of modern cell phones is their immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and tended as a general matter to constitute only a narrow intrusion on privacy."
- deepsun 3mo ago
  My point is: why don't anyone makes a fuss over water searches the same way as airports? It's been like that forever. There are reddit discussions about water searches, but never on HN or any news. To. Me it seems interesting discrepancy.

lorreyfum 3mo ago

[flagged]

pc86 3mo ago
What is the point you're trying to make?
- remashedspood 3mo ago
  Fascism
- lorreyfum 3mo ago
  I know it’s weird for the tendies here, but both sides have to follow the law and respect the law. Not a hard concept. That’s why we have laws. If you don’t like the laws where you are, move to a place that has laws compatible with your views.
  - AlexeyBelov 3mo ago
    > I know it’s weird for the tendies here Review the guidelines.
- lorreyfum 3mo ago
  That here on ycombinator saying to follow the law gets you downvoted and flagged. Let that sink in.
antonvs 3mo ago
Which law is that? It's true that border agents need to follow the law, unlike these ones.
AtlasBarfed 3mo ago
I passed the law that your existence is illegal. Follow it
- lorreyfum 3mo ago

Zak 3mo ago

> That anything within 100 miles of the border is constitution free tosses that out That's a misconception. Border/immigration agents can operate inside this zone, including making stops with reasonable suspicion or running checkpoints where everyone is stopped with no suspicion. The checkpoints are limited in scope, and do not provide authority for searching electronic devices. Some people, including a couple dissenting supreme court justices do feel the checkpoint part violates the constitution. That's distinct from the border search exemption, which allows inspection of everyone and everything crossing the border. It only exists when someone is actually crossing the border and does not allow CBP to stop or search people who are not crossing the border. Edit: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

mannanj 3mo ago

I'd heard in another article around this, that in this particular situation they had said it was a routine border search. Not even something criminal, just routine procedure. Then that under neath all that they did in fact suspect something criminal and were using the standard stop as a pretext for criminal investigation is the constitutional violation.

il-b 3mo ago
“Your phone smells like weed”

milesvp 3mo ago

Having lived near the US border most my life, the way it was explained to me years ago, is that there is a strip of land at the border crossing, where you are in neither country. In this space, you are not privy to any of the protections you would be allowed were you in either the US or Canada. This is where you are taken when you are forced to leave your car. Part of the current controversy is that the US government is trying to treat this literal no man’s land as both international land as as federal land with the disparate charges they are applying. Fun fact. Lack of parking is not a legitimate reason to attempt to drive past this region. I was once flagged crossing into canada on a day they were interviewing a lot of travelers. I spotted parking in what looked to me like an overflow lot on the other side of a fence, and when I slowly drove that direction sirens blasted and guns were drawn. Nothing gives you clarity like a gun pointed at you.

abduhl 3mo ago
Whoever explained this to you has done you a terrible disservice. The border is the border - on one side you are in the USA and on the other side you are outside it. If there was a strip of land where you are not in a country then how can CBP assert any authority? No, you must be in America. There is no "no man's land," and there is no such thing as "international land" at America's borders where no law exists.
- duttish 3mo ago
  Related anecdote, there is a strip of international land between Egypt and Sudan, neither country wants it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil
  - joemi 2mo ago
    No-man's-lands exist (a very obvious one is the DMZ between North Korea and South Korea), but I believe the specific point was that no-man's-lands don't exist at the US borders.
jamwil 3mo ago