3 ms·

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 witho

by deepsun 2mo 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 2mo 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 2mo 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 2mo ago
    that's why GrapheneOS has biometric+pin
  - nickthegreek 2mo ago
    on iphone - tap power button 5 times.
- convolvatron 2mo 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 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 2mo 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 2mo 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.
      - tsimionescu 2mo ago
        Be that as it may, it is very much established law. CBP can search your phone when you are crossing the border without needing any specific justification other than the fact that you're crossing the border. Anything they find can then be used against you in other cases. See for example https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-phone-can-be-searched-at-the-9276530/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-phone-can-be-searched...
    - convolvatron 2mo ago
      general enforcement of federal law as a special exception of the 4th amendment doesn't seem to be in the charter passed by congress in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/211 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/211 no judge thought there was sufficient evidence to grant a warrant in this case, so what you're saying is that any CBP agent can go fishing for anything they want. anyone can be detained for any reason that an individual CBP agent considers necessary.
niam 2mo 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 2mo 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.

by deepsun 2mo ago

tsimionescu 2mo 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 2mo 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 2mo ago
  that's why GrapheneOS has biometric+pin
- nickthegreek 2mo ago
  on iphone - tap power button 5 times.
convolvatron 2mo 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 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- tsimionescu 2mo 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 2mo 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.
    - tsimionescu 2mo ago
      Be that as it may, it is very much established law. CBP can search your phone when you are crossing the border without needing any specific justification other than the fact that you're crossing the border. Anything they find can then be used against you in other cases. See for example https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-phone-can-be-searched-at-the-9276530/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/your-phone-can-be-searched...
  - convolvatron 2mo ago
    general enforcement of federal law as a special exception of the 4th amendment doesn't seem to be in the charter passed by congress in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/211 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/211 no judge thought there was sufficient evidence to grant a warrant in this case, so what you're saying is that any CBP agent can go fishing for anything they want. anyone can be detained for any reason that an individual CBP agent considers necessary.

niam 2mo 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 2mo 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.