Slashdot Mirror
US-Born NASA Scientist Detained At The Border Until He Unlocked His Phone (theverge.com)
Sidd Bikkannavar works at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. After racing solar-powered cars in Chile, he had trouble returning to America.
mspohr quote The Verge:
Bikkannavar says he was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and pressured to give the Customs and Border Protection agents his phone and access PIN. Since the phone was issued by NASA, it may have contained sensitive material that wasn't supposed to be shared. Bikkannavar's phone was returned to him after it was searched by CBP, but he doesn't know exactly what information officials might have taken from the device...
The officer also presented Bikkannavar with a document titled "Inspection of Electronic Devices" and explained that CBP had authority to search his phone. Bikkannavar did not want to hand over the device, because it was given to him by JPL and is technically NASA property. He even showed the officer the JPL barcode on the back of phone. Nonetheless, CBP asked for the phone and the access PIN. "I was cautiously telling him I wasn't allowed to give it out, because I didn't want to seem like I was not cooperating," says Bikkannavar. "I told him I'm not really allowed to give the passcode; I have to protect access. But he insisted they had the authority to search it."
While border agents have the right to search devices, The Verge reports that travelers aren't legally required to unlock their phones, "although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if they do not." They also report that Bikkannavar "was not allowed to leave until he gave CBP his PIN," adding that the cybersecurity team at JPL "was not happy about the breach."
The officer also presented Bikkannavar with a document titled "Inspection of Electronic Devices" and explained that CBP had authority to search his phone. Bikkannavar did not want to hand over the device, because it was given to him by JPL and is technically NASA property. He even showed the officer the JPL barcode on the back of phone. Nonetheless, CBP asked for the phone and the access PIN. "I was cautiously telling him I wasn't allowed to give it out, because I didn't want to seem like I was not cooperating," says Bikkannavar. "I told him I'm not really allowed to give the passcode; I have to protect access. But he insisted they had the authority to search it."
While border agents have the right to search devices, The Verge reports that travelers aren't legally required to unlock their phones, "although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if they do not." They also report that Bikkannavar "was not allowed to leave until he gave CBP his PIN," adding that the cybersecurity team at JPL "was not happy about the breach."
And by him I mean the CBP officer guilty of breach of national security.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Everything. If they had it for more than a couple minutes, then they very likely have a carbon copy of its entire contents.
Once there was a mayor from somewhere in the US that got his computer searched at the border and he was outraged. Turns out he also liked to video teens in strip poker games. There may be some reason to wait for additional facts in this story but...
Wasn't this the USA that was horrified in 1989 after the revelations in Eastern Europe of mass spying on citizens?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Federal government law enforcement agency requires federal government employee to unlock federal government owned phone for inspection. Controversial!
Govt searches govt property. So who's for more govt?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
First, the United States is not a monolithic entity. Second, educational standards across the country and over time are different, and lately have been generally regarded as poor. Third, 9/11 happened and many people think that everyone getting a trophy affects kids more than being raised by parents affected by this tragedy and the subsequent clamp-down by US authoritarians.
I'm not prepared to give up my (and everyone else's) 4th Amendment Rights on the off-chance that we might maybe catch a dirtbag. The cost of making that collar is just too high.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Wow, am wondering if I should be doing a factory reset before the plane finishes taxiing.
Or will they then demand my Google/Apple password?
Nah, I'm white. I'll wait 'till they come for us.
yea! clearly he is an H1B Indian tester in SV who is here abusing the visa program and depressing the wages of good ole white programmers! probably cant write two lines of clean code if his life depended on it. Let's hear from the CBP side! JPL my a$$! this guy works for Qualcomm at best.
Democrat and republican alike, you voted for this. Now live with it! Until you vote them out, shut. the. fuck. UP!
Thank you that is all...
Wow, you're a special type of sheep aren't you.
I'm not prepared to give up my (and everyone else's) 4th Amendment Rights on the off-chance that we might maybe catch a dirtbag. The cost of making that collar is just too high.
Sigh. Border search exception.
Exporting the sensitive information from the US in the first place may be considered an offence (think rocket information == weapons information). You would need to be careful claiming that as a defence against search at the border.
Is there anyone here who doesn't think that the reason the guy was detained was because his skin color was too dark?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
He violated US export regulations by bringing his NASA phone with him. It's understandable why they wanted to search it.
Like this one that may not be following the new Trump line?
if it really did have sensitive government information on it... WHAT WAS IT DOING in a foreign country !!!!????
Back when I was in the Army, I unfortunately had a clearance. Which means when you go on TDY, you become a classified material pack mule. In this particular case, in addition to a bunch of sealed envelopes, I had to carry a stickered laptop. Unshockingly, electronics certified to handle classified material are labeled clearly to include the words "US Government Property" and "Protect from unauthorized disclosure". I was also traveling on a government purchased ticket using government ID. But in civvies, because post-9/11.
Sadly didn't have my crypto carrier card as I wasn't carrying crypto material, that one gets you waved past any security checkpoint. TSA had semi-recently been spun up. Naturally US military people are high risk on aircraft, so we got selected for 'random searching'.
TSA: Sign into the laptop and turn it over.
Me: Uhm. No? It's a classified laptop, and I have no proof you have proper clearance.
TSA: We handle government laptops all the time.
Me: Not my problem. You can swab it for explosives all you want, but if it leaves my line of sight, I'm grabbing the real cops to arrest you while I call the FBI to report theft of classified material.
They squawked like a bunch of chickens. Dumped out all of our stuff, triple checked everything. Sadly none of our stuff was easily breakable, because well, soldiers. Not for a lack of trying. They also tried to make us miss the flight. Like we cared, as again, government travel voucher. This was before body cavity searches and sexually assaulting folks, but it got pretty hands on. Laptop however remained within my line of sight and turned off the entire time. You could almost taste the bureaucrat rage. Got the "special" random selection treatment every time I flew (again, usually on govt dime) for a long while afterwards, so I guess they did get the last laugh.
Hell, that's TSA and pretty expected. Fed buddy was made to bin his bottled water, but his loaded Sig and spare loaded magazines were fine. CBP made me dig out receipts to prove the booze I picked up in Ireland were from the duty free shop. I had him hold my SAW (a not small belt fed machine gun) while I dug around for the bottles and receipt. He didn't even blink. Never underestimate a government employee's ability to follow stupid rules.
As much as I'm opposed to this, why was he taking a Government provided phone outside of the USA?
I'm not prepared...
Well, now's the time to get prepared. If you voted for a democrat or republican you gave your rights away. So bend over and grab your ankles babe.
what can be asked for when moving in and out of the USA.
Having diplomatic immunity from another country is really the only way around that...
If been from the USA was legally special, everyone from the USA would demand rights not to be searched..
So Congress made sure everyone entering the USA would face equal, fair questions and searches.
If a person would like not to be searched, find a way to get full diplomatic immunity...
i.e. persons and property can be examined. No probable cause, no warrant, no "suspicion" protection to stop every search request.
You can be searched, asked questions, have to show a device is what it should be.
Until federal courts or Congress sets new laws or comments on the need for "suspicion" of criminal activity all searches are legal.
Copies of your data are fine too. e.g. a camera can have its digital files looked at or recovered if deleted.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Did you miss the part where he was born in the US? No H1B visa required.
US is fundamentally broken. From example to the world to laughing stock.
This poster is not a real human. They're a worthless bigot. They don't belong anywhere on Earth.
Don't you mean, bigot belongs in India, for the irony.
Moron. He was going back to where he was from, which is the US.
He's got a foreign sounding last name, and that makes him a potential terrorist. They should have beat him a bit, y'know, just in case.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Have you actually read the constitution? Have you read and understood over 200 years of legal precedent regarding the abilities of the courts when asked to adjudicate a conflict over a law? There is legal precedent that the president does not have carte blanche over border rules. We do not have a dictatorship.
But you don't have any 4th Amendment Rights at an airport. Searches and seizures at an airport are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. It's called the Border Search Exception ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), it has been in effect since the 1970s (or earlier?), and pretty much every related case was ruled in favor of the government.
The new administration is going to go for mass/personal surveillance even more than the prior administration (which was terrible) - count on these guys making a copy of every bit of personal data and messaging on that phone.
I'd get a burner phone with very limited personal data on it and use that for international traveling unless you don't mind the govt getting a copy of everything on your daily driver phone and saving it forever to be possibly used against you when the time comes (and the tyrant is right, we can elect anyone). JMHO....
The US Government. Not a monarchy. Three branches. Checks and balances. Deal with it.
We, the 'most powerful' nation have become so damn paranoid. Drive to Canada via a mid west state.
Ask them to contact your attorney and the attorney for whatever organization you're with and let them fight it out. Off course they'll insist they have the authority, but if your device is marked as classified, they don't.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There is legal precedent and explicit, clearly written law that says the President has just such power for the reasons the President stated. The judge who made the original decision is a vicious leftist hack and the 9th circuit court is no better.
This is a decision by people trying to get petty political gains and not caring how many people are killed as a result. They are worse than murderers, because they are not even risking their own lives.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Well ironically, if he'd been called Melania or Annika or Dashia they probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Even if you're heading to a modelling convention and staying at a modelling agency house without work visa paperwork.
(Trump's modelling agency hired a lot of undocumented models from eastern europe without work visas to model in the US, his wife Melania was one of these illegal workers, yet nobody is expecting the new Trump laws to be applied to her).
" adding that the cybersecurity team at JPL "was not happy about the breach.""
You have a cyber security breach in the whitehouse now. FFS, he wouldn't even sign the cyber security bill, and meetings between his team and of the Putin's team have been confirmed by US governmental investigators.
Then pretty much every case was decided wrong. It's happened before you know. See, for instance, the moving to detention camps of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, which was ruled constitutional by the same screwed up institution. Heavy emphasis on "US citizens" there, because it's kind of important.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there's a 'border search exception' to the 4th amendment, and there's nothing in the Constitution that grants the government that power. This is wrong and it needs to be stopped.
What they should do at the border is verify that you're a US citizen, do their tax thing if you bought stuff overseas, and that's it. People not covered by the Constitution (as in, non-US citizens) we can do what we want just as they can with us when we visit their countries--but this harassment of US citizens has to stop and I don't give a damn what happened on 9/11 that they use as a made up excuse for their illegal behavior. I feel trapped in my own country now because despite being a natural born citizen I don't feel safe leaving. I'm not afraid of other countries (well, most) but I'm very much afraid of my own government when I return.
Now, I don't know if this person is a US citizen or not. A non-US citizen working for the US government is an interesting conundrum but at the very least the power tripping border guard should've checked with someone before proceeding on.
The courts cannot legally act as legislators, but they do anyway. It is the courts that are destroying the balance of power.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Actually, the person who handed over the phone probably did not have standing to claim 4th amendment rights.
The phone is not his.
It belongs to NASA.
For reference, see this about Microsoft:
“Standing has been a barrier in cases that seek to vindicate people’s privacy rights,” said Jennifer Granick, a Stanford Law School professor. “It’s a serious issue in conducting constitutional litigation, and this case is no different.”
Four court decisions listed by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle all reached the same conclusion -- Fourth Amendment protections can only be cited by individuals, and not vicariously by third parties. The most recent was a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the family of a driver who was shot and killed by police after a high-speed chase couldn’t invoke that right on his behalf related to a lawsuit over his death.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Here is the EFF advice for crossing borders with digital devices, from 2011:
https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi...
When you are dealing with border security, they have the right to do some pretty invasive searching. It's happened to me and (gasp) I'm a straight white US-born Christian male.
The president can not make a ban based on religion, and yet that is what he claimed this was even though the wording in the order itself made it muddled. Thus, put it on hold until the lawsuits go through. This is not judicial activism, this is the courts doing what they are supposed to do - the president does not have the power to dismiss a lawsuit unilaterally and so the courts must get involved.
So the original judge, appointed to Dubya, is a leftist hack? No one is getting killed over this. If we cared about safety we would have had the ban on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well. This is 100% about Trump keeping a poorly thought out campaign promise.
And if he was really concerned with protecting data on his phone, instead of surrendering it he should have dropped it on the floor and crushed it. Unlocking it then becomes moot.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
JPL employee violates policy and causes unauthorized disclosure. If he were white the same thing would have happened but there would be no story nor the alt-left virtue signaling.
If the guy's abroad on a personal trip, why's he carrying his JPL issued phone with him? That seems like a security no-no.
I've never worked at NASA but I have been issued equipment by government contractors and taking it out of the country while on personal trips was expressly forbidden. I never traveled abroad on company business but my understanding was that for at least some destinations the security department would require you to take a different laptop that only had the data you needed for the trip on it instead of your usual one. I'm not sure if that was for every destination or just for the more hostile ones.
BS, if it's crossing and physical, search it. If it's crossing and electronic (data), then don't bother because it's coming in either way (network) and to search it means risk of permanent retention and data abuse.
All men created equal, it says. Means US citizens or not. Everyone should be treated with dignity under the Constitution. This is not to be confused with "don't ask, don't tell" attitude at the border. If you're a known bad actor, beat it. But rummaging through everyone's electronic data at the gate is rude and pointless. Data's getting in no matter what
Guaranteed they wanted to sell some of that info to other countries.
There's not a single honest person working for our border organizations.
Depending on your definition, pretty much everyone involved with government is Leftist. https://www.reddit.com/r/expla...
Is no more.
And the Executive doesn't have agencies which write their own legally binding regulations. Such regulations that if you violate them you find yourself in legal trouble? Regulations that the Legislature did not write?
You're trying too hard, libtard.
Until a celebrity gets the same treatment it won't matter, because 99% of the sheeple don't follow /.
Let this happen to Beyonce and rejoice.
Nazi America.
Why did he take NASA issued equipment out the US? What if another country did the same search?
Just put your data on a micro SD card and hide it in a Rubiks cube
But the legislature have the administrative agency the right to promulgate regulations. That's how adminstrative law works. Legislature gives up it's powers to the executive. Of course they also have the right to take them back.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there's a 'border search exception' to the 4th amendment
Indeed.
This is wrong and it needs to be stopped.
Like the ACA, which is exceedingly illegal, if we're playing the Constitution game.
Thankfully, that boat set sail during the Washington administration, and is not coming back into port.
Phones can be, y'know, encrypted...
They act as legislators only by clarifying laws that are brought before the court during a lawsuit. And yes, the laws are indeed vague many times. They are made vague because it's easier to get them passed that way.
So for example, someone commits a crime, during the trial the defendant complains that evidence was seized illegally, or that he didn't know about certain rights; this gets brought before the courts to decide. The courts do not seek out these cases on their own. Then there's a conflict at the heart usually; the executive has some authority to do searches and obtain warrants, but the constitution forbids unreasonable searches, both sides have very good points. So the courts have to decide. Very often the conflict is between what current legislators think the meaning should be and what the current executive thinks the meaning should be. It's a tug of war, both sides want to enhance their own power while diminishing the power of the other side.
Note that almost nothing gets to the supreme court without there being a real solid conflict at the core with complex legal issues involved (except maybe the bush v. gore case). This is because most cases trickle up through the court systems, there have been appeals already and usually a disagreement between different circuit courts. Many of these "activist judges running amok!" cases would have that accusation no matter which way they ruled.
Citizen's United case is cited as an "activist court" decision, people hate that decision on the left and the right. Politicians love it though so it won't change anytime soon. However it was a real case brought all the way to the court with very good justification on both sides of the issue. Just because the decision was awful (and I think it was) does not mean the supreme court was being activist. Their job was to settle the dispute. And they decided that a group of people has the same rights as a single person, essentially, and that you could not restrict the free speech of a group of people even if that happens to be a corporation. People don't hate that decision because it violates the constitution or various laws, but because it violates how we want the law to be. The only way to fix that is with a constitutional amendment.
Now if congress does not like how a court rules, then the congress already has the power to override this, if they can get a law passed to clarify rules and enough votes to overcome a veto. But it's easier to just bitch that the courts are out of control because it agrees with the executive branch on occasion. If they don't like the courts then they need to be more clear with the laws and make sure the laws don't conflict with each other or conflict with the constitution. Also, complaining about the courts is an easy way to get re-elected.
There's a long history here too. Jefferson hated that Marshall did not allow the executive more power and accused that court of being "despotic", the same dispute that started to give the constitution actual weight instead of just a pretty piece of paper that could be ignored when politically convenient.
Pretty much everyone human is leftist. Even Republicans.
The US uses its own (wrong) definitions that confuse the rest of the world.
All men created equal, it says.
If by 'it' you mean the Declaration of Independence, then you'd be correct. The Constitution, however, does not contain these words.
After you, sir.
He is way smarter and cooler than you would ever be.... AH!
http://www.principiaalumni.org/from-space-to-solar-car-races
I knew as a Canadian I am privileged to cross the US border but I had no idea a US citizen had to deal with this. I always assumed if a Canadian border guard gave me shit I (and I had nothing to hide) I could tell them to go fuck themselves. Who are they and what added rights have they been given to keep me out of my country? And I will tell them to go fuck themselves if they try this garbage with me and I can't think of a thing they could to do retaliate (again, because I have nothing to hide).
So then the question becomes, why do Americans have to deal with such bullshit? The guy is a citizen (it's irrelevant that he was born there - a citizen is a citizen either way). What right does some powertripping asshole have to detain him? I really don't know the rules, so I'll ask: what if he resists and just drives off? If he's he's not committing an offense and if has nothing to hide, what right does one man have to tell another man he can't enter his own country? This kind of shit makes me very angry.
Border Services think they are Gods. And it's true they have formidable legislation on their side. Formidable, but not beyond question.
I've long since decided, if I have to travel with a work laptop. We too have formidable legislation on our side; the kind of legislation that *Does Not* permit exceptions. So what I've decided is that "I do not have the authority to release that information to you. If you want to deal with my corporation's security department, that's your call. I won't be doing that. I can give you the initial contacts but after that you have to navigate the system."
If they want to seize the laptop, I'll be taking notes and reporting that to corporate InfoSec. Border Services can make your life difficult it's true, you'd better be prepared to be detained for several hours if you go this route. In fact due to this I don't want to travel with any corporate devices; seriously, it's not worth the time and effort.
Also, try to minimize the attitude. That alone will take a serious act of will, believe me! However any attitude you give the agents will only increase the time they decide to hassle you.
The Border guard was just being sure the guy wasn't trying to sneak any climate data into the US
Unless you have a native American name, you have a foreign-sounding last name in the USA. Unfortunately, the descendants of the first batch of invading foreigners are having a hissy fit about subsequent foreigners following in their footsteps.
You are a native american then?
If not, then as you say, fuck off home. Back where _you_ came from.
That's because French Monarchists are very rare in the US.
I think there's two in Baton Rouge.
The constitution is very clear on the fact that it also applies to non-citizens. When something only applies to citizens, the word "citizen" is used, and when something applies to everybody, it uses words like "people".
Some publicly funded secrets? Nothing to fear.
The "US citizens" thing is also based on erroneous case law. The 4th does not say anything about citizens, it applies to foreign nationals too.
I make sure I bring a bottle of salt water. So in case they get salty, I can take a sip of victory.
They have more guns than you do.
They win.
I'd get a burner phone with very limited personal data on it and use that for international traveling
Why? That seems super annoying.
Instead get the burner phone, and do nothing with it. Take your real phone, and enjoy it. Then as you are traveling through customs, if they ask to see your phone hand it over... the burner phone that is, and provide them the PIN. If you swap in the SIM on the plane they can't say it's not your primary phone, and how would they know anyway... they are just going to attach the device to some system that sucks data. So give them something to suck on, as it were - and everyone is happy. The show goes on!
Posting Anon so only the CIA knows who I am. Hi Bob! How are the kids?
To date, my electronic devices have only been inspected (beyond "can you turn it on?") by the US border control. Granted, there may be others in the world but I normally don't travel to totalitarian hell-holes.
One of my previous employers made a policy in 2008 about what devices could be taken through the US border control and under which circumstances. Exec summary: if not on official business, no device from the employer can be taken to the US. If on official business, a loaner laptop is handed out and it will be re-imaged on return.
Our aircrew flying back from a one way trip carry classified laptops all the time. TSA can look in the bag we carry them in, but they can't touch the laptop. Not a chance. Ever. For any reason. Not going to happen. Tough shit. And they are not curriers, their aircrew in civies.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
WTF is he doing with a NASA issued phone on a personal trip ? What if it got stolen while he was on vacation ? He should be fired.
not sure how involved NASA is with climate science, but clearly that is the reason; why is this a surprise?
Well maybe if you'd get up off your apologist ass and DO something about it instead of quoting the obvious status quo, this government thing wouldn't be a problem, or even exist.
The phone/computer/whatever IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY and ALL THE INFORMATION on it is the property of YOUR EMPLOYER.
So just kindly tell the border agent that one must obtain permission from one's employer before revealing proprietary company information. Pretty much tell them that one has to get permission from one's company's legal department to reveal the unlock code for any company equipment because it's not one's own decision to make to reveal company proprietary information to a third party. That's pretty much standard policy for any company.
However, if it's one personal device, it's definitely it's within one's right to not give the border agents the password, but then it's also the border agent's right to detain you till you do, or till some other agreement is reached. Unless you can contact a lawyer immediately and have the funds to pay one, then without a lawyer helping you out, it's going to be difficult for you to navigate the legal minefield.
Why would JPL not wipe any sensitive info from phone cache after it gets locked (or worse gets put in a plane mode). If nothing else, if there is lost luggage or a plane crash, wouldn't they want to make sure that national-secret level info is not in the wrong hands? And after the phone is unlocked, why isn't there a separate security handshake before any sensitive data is populated in the phone's apps from the network?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
No humans are native to the Americas, not even the "native Americans". They are from northeast Asia.
Like they should do with all Space Nutters. Nobody is going anywhere, there is nothing there for us. Just a dead radiation-blasted vacuum. And yet those idiots cling to their childish Space Age fantasies with the zeal of a Daesh suicide bomber.
I too had believed that to be the case. I have recently read that there is some reconsideration of this from a number of disciplines so my judgement is currently served. But even the Americas are not native to America. It all comes from what was before.
But all you do is reinforce my point. There is no "home". We are a migratory species. That is why we have survived so far.
There are laws that the president cannot break. Treaties are laws. He would need congressional approval to break the treaties, including UN treaties. The president cannot increase the number of green card holders without congressional approval. Deportations require review by the courts, as constitutional due process applies to everyone in the US, legally or not. Opposite of that, the president also can't make all illegal immigrants legal by himself. Current immigration law forbids discrimination of immigrant visas on the basis of race, sex, or place of residence; though the president can impose stricter background checks ("extreme vetting"). Of course presidents have often overreached here.
Congress has the plenary power to regulation naturalization in the constitution, and because the constitution does not mention immigration the supreme court has held that this clause gives congress plenary power to regulation immigration. Nowhere in the constitution is the president granted powers over naturalization or immigration, although the executive does enforce these laws and regulation with some latitude granted by congress.
Unless you can point to the clause in the constitution that says otherwise, this is the job of congress. Which is one reason everyone was so angry at unilateral action taken by president Obama.
Clear back in the mid 1980 era we had engineers on domestic flights that were held at airports until FBI folks could bring in an engineer to inspect the circuits with a fear that we could be handing over technology to foreign agents. It was an odd sort of thing as apparently the fear was that an engineer could hand over a circuit board while in flight, to a person who would transfer to another flight leaving the US. Usually our people were carrying either computer boards or robotic boards, none of which were in violation of any guarded secrets.
As a matter of law, because he is not the owner, he cannot grant permission to search. Since he divulged his access, he and the TSA agent can be prosecuted under the CFAA.
IANAL.
That being said, anyone carrying anything they wish to keep confidential within 200 miles of a boarder, or while not in your own home effectively has no rights at all. Not as a matter of law, but as a simple matter of fact. Not just 4th amendments rights either. The police shoot dead unarmed people at least two times a week on average. As a simple matter of statistics, you are 300 times (times, not percent) more likely to be killed by a police officer than you are by a terrorist.
You people supporting these actions are insane.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Now, slightly different case. Hear me out:
- You work for a FOREIGN gov agency on critical material (say nuclear for instance)
- You are invited to the US for a collaboration, so you take work (encrypted) laptop with you.
- You are not allowed by your gov to give access to anyone
- At US border, TSA asks for access.
What do you do ? What CAN you do ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
In other words, "think of the children". A poor excuse for this sort of thing if there ever was one... because if it is an excuse, why stop at border checks? Why not have cops bust down people's doors on a regular basis to go through their porn pile? Do random stop-and-searches?
There may be valid reasons for allowing searches at the border that are not allowed elsewhere, but finding kiddie porn isn't one of them.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
That's all there is to it. And you can't just sit through the primaries until only fascists are left, either, and then complain about a lack of choice.
"but then it's also the border agent's right to detain you till you do"
Or get a warrant to say it's necessary.
Which would probably be refused.
The fear of "we'll just hold you until you co-operate" is not due process.
You object.
You wait.
Then you call in the lawyers (in this case JPL's, I imagine).
Because - as stated - they have no right to demand the passcode.
Hell, I'd be making them sign an NDA. As in YOU PERSONALLY sign the NDA to tell me what you'll do with the information in the phone. They'll refuse, of course they will, but it's not like I'm being uncooperative, I'm asking you to document, receipt and provide data security for that thing you're trying to access, which is a core part of evidence preservation anyway.
But there is a reason that I a) wouldn't enter the US, b) wouldn't try to take any electronic devices even if I did.
This guy worked for JPL. Imagine what that's doing to your foreign workers and people on business trips from other countries. They just aren't going to want to do business with you if their secret patents are being shared willy-nilly around the TSA offices without some kind of guarantee.
Hell, if they asked for my social media, I'd refuse beyond showing them my (locked-down) public Facebook page. If that gets me detained, even theoretically, then I'm not risking going at all.
The US is so anti-foreigner nowadays that they are basically going to cut themselves further off from the world than their own ignorance takes them anyway.
Burner phones are not very convenient for individuals though. Expensive to keep getting good ones, and of course you need a burner laptop as well.
With the phone I do a backup and factory reset. With an encrypted device it's safe. With the laptop the SSD is encrypted and it needs a USB drive with the decryption software on it to boot. I don't carry that USB drive with me, I just keep an image of it online so I can download it when I get where I'm going. Instead, I throw a Windows install on it that I show to the border security people if they ask.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Checks and balances...
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
The Ninth Circus arrogated a power they do not have.
Many people disagree with you. Most important, the right-wing judge whom Trump wants to add to the Supreme Court of the USA disagrees with you. In public. If _that_ man says that a court is right and Trump is wrong then you can believe it. (Like when _the NSA_ says that backdoors in phone encryption is bad for national security, then you can believe it).
And in the US they use the normal colors for leftist and rightist wrongly. Socialists and other leftwing groups have traditionally gone under a RED banner.
Remember the old chant: "Better dead than red!".
You inform you government of the situation and sit down.
The TSA can then decide to detain a foreign government worker that is important to both their and US nuclear program.
It might be that you will have to return and can't proceed with whatever collaboration you were invited to.
Write a report to you government and let them ask the US side what is going on.
If you find yourself in need of access to some restricted information, just pretend you are from CBP and get them to unlock the phone/computer for you. Pretty much makes encryption worthless.
Shouldn't be carrying a GFE phone outside the country unless ones traveling on a diplomatic passport, that is on official business. Even then, one is best to use a 'throw down' device with the minimum apps and data downloaded to perform tasks specific to that trip.
Two words: Diplomatic incident.
Our corporate devices are protected with an MDM policy that essentially wipes the phone after X number of failed attempts to unlock it.
I'm wondering how would he have fared if his nerves got the best of him and he accidentally wiped his device prior to handing it over. Or if he would have wiped his device on purpose if his company held a corporate policy against coercive acts designed to avoid data breaches.
This activity certainly begs the question as to what corporations should do in order to protect their data, which ironically it is often times US Government policy that mandates federal contractors protect sensitive data.
Thanks to the War on Terror for this bullshit Catch-22.
Like the ACA, which is exceedingly illegal, if we're playing the Constitution game.
Supreme Court begs to differ. lol.
I dub thee "indo-chimp" guy. Like many ignorant, dumb people, you repeat yourself ad-nauseum. Yes, we know you hate "indo-chimps" because they're smarter than you, and because they can get work while you can't. It's not because you're white, it's because you're a useless, useless cunt. Go ahead and throw that rope up, we know you've been considering it. Get it done. Thanks bud.
The Courts, i.e. the ones who get to arbitrate what the Constitution actually means, disagree with your interpretation, and have done so repeatedly for decades. Therefore you are wrong.
Aw diddums, he's moaning that the president doesn't have all the powers of an emperor. Maybe you'll get your wish soon, dumbass.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
LOL. The last time an American was killed by an immigrant from those 7 countries was 1975. The Saudis, who did 9/11, are still allowed in. "Safety". Pathetic.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Unless you have a native American name, you have a foreign-sounding last name in the USA. Unfortunately, the descendants of the first batch of invading foreigners are having a hissy fit about subsequent foreigners following in their footsteps.
And even then the natives came from somewhere else first. Following this logic unless you're African living in Africa (could even narrow this down to South Africa) you're an immigrant.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Was in Paris in 2015, by refugees from Syria. They killed over 100 people that day.
Funny how I have "alternate-facts" that are actually truthful, while you don't.
The good folks in US Intelligence might want to whisper a few things into the ears of Customs regarding their search rules.
It is a bit more difficult to keep tabs on folks traveling abroad when they decide to leave their tracking devices. . . . . .er phones at home due to the issues experienced at the borders.
. . . .why are we keeping "sensitive information" on a PHONE ?? If it's protected government information, then protect it ***properly***. Yes, it's a pain to label, wrap, register, and put into a courier pouch for transit. And get a validated courier ID card and a Transit Letter for the particular documents and/or items. But that is the protocol.
Without access, they're as guilty as Snowden or Manning, no MORE guilty, since they had been given access to the systems.
Perhaps you forgot, Trump isn't allowed to run the borders. They are now run by the 9th circuit court of appeals. You don't like it, take it up with them.
They unconstitutional took control of the borders and who enters and under which rules from the executive branch based on "I don't like what he is doing" without even mentioning the law that they used to do it.
Give lefties an ounce of power and this is what you get.
I'm curious, how much power do you think Trump has, or should have versus how much you think Obama had, or should have had?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Therefore the CBP officer AND EVERY HANDLER OF THAT CLASSIFIED PHONE are guilty of forced entry to a military classified secret document resource without authorisation or legal right.
Forget Hilary, these people FORCED someone to hand over the keys, just like if they held a literal gun to their head.
Proper response by the President would have been to ... defy their bullshit ruling
So, you're saying that since you disagree this one time, it's ok to throw away entire system of checks and balances that our Constitution mandates.
That is how authoritarian governments take hold - with applause, from those who do not actually believe in democracy.
After all, WL is not beholden to the US government's laws. So Manning and Snowden was just government searching government property.
Yawn....
You just shoot dead the criminal trying to access DoD materials in front of the officer tasked with "Top Secret- Guard", who, being the TSA agent with a stick up their ass, is on the ground, not the plane in mid flight.
You know what should have more standing than "the oldest US LEO"? (which the border authorities aren't, constables and sheriffs are, but we'll let that pass)
The bloody constitution.
The person was a US citizen.
The search was not reasonable, and was therefore not legal. Because:
o There was no warrant describing the place to be searched or the things to seize
o There was no oath or affirmation
o There was no probable cause
The constitution explicitly says that the right against searches and seizures defined by the above shall not be violated. The constitution is what authorizes our form of government. No one who isn't a drooling sycophant could possibly read the 4th amendment any other way.
While complying may have been the thing to do in the sense that the US government has indeed arrogated the power to do unconstitutional searches, and there could have been significant consequences based upon that unauthorized power, let's be 100% clear: The USG was acting entirely out of bounds here.
There is no border search exception in the constitution. There is, however, an explicit set of prerequisites that must be met to search a citizen for sure, and probably any person as well, though in this case that doesn't even come into it.
Before anyone starts yelling "but the courts", the courts gave themselves the power to make law that violates the constitution; the constitution did not. So they are acting illegally when they sanction such laws; congress is acting illegally when it makes such laws; border agents are acting illegally when they enforce such laws.
As soon as someone says "there are exceptions to the constitution", you know they are making an incorrect argument. There is no such thing. The moment you accept that there are, it becomes merely advisory, and you then are advocating for a pure oligarchy. The only ambiguity in the constitution arises when one part is in conflict with another part; in that case, questions do arise with regard to which part holds sway; but in the case of search and seizure, there is no ambiguity. At all. This is an explicit limit on government.
For those who have never read the constitution, it supplies the flexibility required to authorize such things in article five, which explains how the amendment process works. Not in article three, which defines the authority of the Supreme Court, and which contains not one word about the Supreme Court being able to alter the constitution according to their current whims.
Jail has doctors that cover more then the ER and under GOP healthcare plan may be the only place to go if you have pre-ex.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Have two pins, one that normally unlocks the phone, a second one that wipes the phone before unlocking it. Make sure you do not confuse the two when asked for the pin by CBP. Problem solved.
Travel / tourism to US is plummeting.
The size of the effect varies by source:
6.5% - http://www.reuters.com/article...
17% - http://time.com/money/4662727/...
25% - https://www.theguardian.com/tr...
50% - http://ttgnordic.com/interest-...
I am European.
I have been to United States tens of times, both on company budget and on my own.
I won't come back, unless pressed really hard by my employer.
Why should I?
The world is full of wonderful places.
Why should I choose a country which is openly hostile to visitors?
While that's a lovely fiction created by our government, it really does not pass constitutional muster.
It really is cut and dry as written and not really open to "exceptions".
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It is easy for the government to stay within the law, just issue a warrant stating what you are looking for, but the 4th is specifically designed to stop fishing expeditions. That along with the right to travel freely really makes these laws questionable on the surface.
Kent v Dulles:
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Fucking bigoted fat fuck alt right 4-chan trolls, you vile scum are dumb as fucking bowling balls
All men created equal, it says.
If by 'it' you mean the Declaration of Independence, then you'd be correct. The Constitution, however, does not contain these words.
Which is why we have been in a need for amendments.
Why did he take NASA issued equipment out the US? What if another country did the same search?
It is always a possibility for another country to conduct such a search, but the government (as well as companies that deal with sensitive information or IP) have guidelines that more or less resolve to this: 1. Do you need it for your job?
2. Are you going to a country that is hostile to us, or
3. That has a history of equipment check on US citizens.
If you answer "yes" to any of these, you might still be permitted to carry the equipment (and no otherwise.)
In the end, we are not talking about searches in Chile. We are talking about idiotic searches by US customs, of equipment belonging to NASA carried by a US born scientist, without any fucking cause.
So now if someone wants to spy on top secret work done at certain agencies of the US Govt, all they have to do is plant spies at the borders. No need to infiltrate such agencies. Nice going stupid government.
Outrage at who he is may be unjustfied. Perhaps this was a randomized search to avoid profiling those who really do need to be search each and every time.
That's fine. But if you have to catch a connecting flight in an hour, you really think this is all going to shake out in enough time?
LOL, the Space Age is over, dweebs. Vital 50 year old information that is already public may have been compromised!
Oh noes!
Knowing that phones are checked, wont all those bad guys simply remove their incriminating email/social media account from the phone prior to inspection then add it back after check?
don't come whining, boy
But we do have first amendment rights and also likely 5th amendment rights. Providing a password or pin likely is protected by both and has been ruled as such. In that situation I would have basically told them to piss off but in a much more polite fashion. It wouldn't have been the first time I have told a government agent what they don't want to hear. Then again I am a white guy with an anglicized last name who has a good job, good education, and clean background so I can get away with things like that without any real repercussions. By exercising my rights I hopefully can show others that they can do the same and also show the government agents that they don't have the power they would like to think they have.
Time to offend someone
And they decided that a group of people has the same rights as a single person, essentially, and that you could not restrict the free speech of a group of people even if that happens to be a corporation. People don't hate that decision because it violates the constitution or various laws, but because it violates how we want the law to be. The only way to fix that is with a constitutional amendment.
Well...given that our SCOTUS judges are mostly older folks, and everyone who voted for it was appointed by a Republican POTUS (it was essentially a party-line vote), you could also fix it in the long run by not voting for a POTUS from that party and making sure to vote for a POTUS from the party that nominated all the dissenters.
Not for much longer.
The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial, and will not be questioned. - Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller
Civil war is coming.
Just buy a brick throwaway phone for travel and reset to factory before leaving. Honestly, if every person bought an old school brick phone and offered to show TSA whether they asked or not, it would be bad enough for business just holding up the lines and they'll stop that shit. Remember when people wore bathing suites and stripped without asking? So, it really could work.
Sounds like a brown person name! You can't be too careful with them brown people!
They might get the idea that they are welcome to come and go from this country as they please! Don't think they know this is TrumpMerica now?
I don't see the evidence that theory is the correct one out of other theories. There's too many other potential outcomes for being given trophies that that theory doesn't explain. For example, why don't they reach the conclusion, like I did, that trophies are essentially worthless.
Sounds to me like the border patrol agent illegally accessed classified (rocket science) information, he should be charged under the plethora of national security laws. On a more serious note NEVER take data storage devices through US borders, its like walking around on the wrong side of town waiving around a stack of cash. Put it on a secured website.
Neither can the President act as a legislator. Executive order != Law. Now, if both houses of Congress has ratified a bill for POTUS to sign into law, that'd be one thing. The courts would indeed be forced to consider only Constitutional issues in ruling. We're not discussing a law, we're discussing an Executive Order. These don't need to be unconstitutional to be overridden by the judiciary, only illegal.
What Law did the judiciary overrule in this case? When did Congress pass a bill for POTUS to sign into law?
And even then the natives came from somewhere else first. Following this logic unless you're African living in Africa (could even narrow this down to South Africa) you're an immigrant.
The Native Americas in North America have been in North America longer than the ancestors of almost everyone living in South Africa. The white South Africans are obviously of European descent from the last handful of centuries, but also most of the black South Africans are descended from people that arrived in the region at various times over the last few millennia.
Native Americans have been in the Americas at least 13,000 years.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I've wondered for a while now what would happen if you showed up to the US border and you didn't have a phone or any social media accounts for them to search. Would that raise red flags? Or would they accept that not everyone has those things?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there's a 'border search exception' to the 4th amendment
The Fourth Amendment bans only "unreasonable searches and seizures". The exception considers searches at the border to be "reasonable".
you could also fix it in the long run by not voting for a POTUS from that party
That doesn't work reliably because of how gerrymandered the presidential electoral districts (i.e. the States) are. See the 2016 Presidential election.
...the war on terror?
I'm pretty sure it's not the west. The more time passes, the more I hear about yet another civil liberty being dissolved. For our protection and security.
Freedom indeed.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well... Now we know if the Russian space program suddenly advances.... how they got the information....(Trump this!)
The USA is anti-human. No need to invoke the racist foreigner stuff. I really want to go have some fun with the TSA on a one way trip to NJ from NH. They're is a lot of stuff you could do if you wanted to proceed an entertaining video simply by invoking your rights and refusing to "cooperate" and I'm not even talking about disobeying the law- but just following recent supreme court rulings for instance. They'll likely flip out if you insist on X [which is your right even at airport] and refuse illegal thing Y. The reason I'd get a one way ticket from NH to NJ is because it's cheap and I'd have no intention of actually taking the flight. I'd be expecting to be held up for a long time. Maybe days and I wouldn't want to miss an actual trip.
Nah, this is stupid baloney. If I am found unconscious in a ditch next to a wrecked motorcycle, trust me that ambulance isn't going to care if I have health insurance or not. I'll get a "free" trip to the hospital, no questions asked. They certainly won't turn you away.
I object to the citizen part being important. Much of the restraints placed on government by the constitution are worded with phrases like "The government shall not" or "No person shall be required to", with no mention of citizenship. If these are inalienable human rights, and if all men are created equal, then it shouldn't matter which country a person is from, the government has no business violating them.
They just aren't going to want to do business with you if their secret patents are being shared willy-nilly around the TSA offices without some kind of guarantee.
You don't think that this has been going on in customs for decades before the TSA even existed? Lets say you work for Airbus and are flying over to bid on a refueling tanker project at the Pentagon. You don't think they'll go through your shit, photocopy everything and hand it to Boeing?
The USA isn't much better than China in this respect.
Hmm... wasn't that about when the "war on drugs" kicked into high gear? How convenient for the government, not worrying about pesky Constitutional protections when searching for booty.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Taxes have to be passed first by the house. This one wasn't. The Supreme Court ruling is trivially demonstrated to be unconstitutional.
There is a group organizing in the United States to restore freedoms and push for more liberty in our life time and its having major successes. The Free State Project was founded as a migration effort to bring people together in a low population state for the purpose of forming a free society. If you can attract enough people to a low population state (New Hampshire ended up working well) there is a possibility of having enough influence politically to impact change in the right direction. While this isn't going to solve the boarder issue in the short term the first thing you need to do if you want more freedom is start organizing others who think like you in one place. In the short term the states imprison more people than the federal government so it's not a bad start. A lot can be done at the state level in increase our freedoms even if some of the national issues will have to wait for another civil war to be resolved.
Question not relevant.
The relevant question is:
What is NASA's policy regarding employees taking NASA phones with them when leaving the country?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Nice and all, but it's speculation.
As regards this matter, the relevant question is the legality of the events precisely at the border with precisely this phone and this individual.
If we're going to allow speculation, my money's on "profiling."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You do realize that The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is Part of NASA and that NASA is a govermnt agency?
Why did he take NASA issued equipment out the US? What if another country did the same search?
And then went to a foreign country to hang out with a bunch of other people from all over the world (some of whom, may come from countries that would like to steal that data).
I am not sure I blame the border security folks for thinking they should look at the phone. His situation is RIPE for being espionage or a victim of same.
Getting pissy about the "secret data" when he's on the way back IN the country but taking it out without a care in the world about it? No sympathy here.
There should be a phone-lock app with 2 different unlock codes - one for normal every-day use and the other which, when used, automatically activates the camera + mic and livestreams/records not only from the camera but a screencast - so those searching the phones will be exposed to what they're actually searching for. Should have ability to disable turning off data/wi-fi so it can be ensured that it streams. I bet there'd be a sizable market for something like that.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
There is almost no aspect of the Constitution which hasn't been carved into shreds by numerous court rulings, especially the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment has been reduced in practice to barely, sort of cover a locked box in a house you own, which LEO may still break into and search under a list of circumstances that grows every year. (Acceptable "exigent circumstances" now includes "I thought I heard something".) And until Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) is rescinded, Border Patrol can literally ignore the constitution, which is similar to Title 14 section 89 of the United States Code which lets the US Coast Guard conduct unlimited warrantless armed no-knock searches of ANY boat for ANY reason including training.
There are no branches of government which treat the Constitution with anything but utter contempt. This extends throughout most state and federal governments. Try "buying" land and building something on it without asking "master may I" every step of the way...
It's just as well that Americans have defended their rights to carry guns so they can stand up to their evil government ... when they try to take away their guns.
It's the only right anyone seems to care about.
Says the guy who follows MSNBC, CNN, HuffPost, Salon, Mic, DailyKOS, Jon Stewart and the rest of the mainstream media like they're religions, and you're calling *him* a sheep? That's just precious. You are bought and owned. You are told what to say and what to think. You have no original thoughts whatsoever.
Have you? The courts can only declare it constitutional or unconstitutional, they aren't the executive branch.
Seems to me that NASA/JPL should have anticipated this, and come up with a solution BEFORE they sent this guy out.
Lots of solutions have been proposed here, technical, legal, etc., but really the one that should pitch in is this particular
employer.
The Constitution, however, does not contain these words.
You're correct. However, the Constitution also does not say that it only applies to American citizens.
Your papers must be in order, comrade. THE SECURITY OF THE STATE IS AT STAKE! We should form a committee to ensure the security of the state. What could we call such a committee for state security?
The Fourth Amendment bans only "unreasonable searches and seizures". The exception considers searches at the border to be "reasonable".
That's only half of the story. The 4th Amendment also says that no warrants shall be issued (in plain language: no permission shall be granted to perform a search or seizure) "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The so-called "Border Search Exception" manufactured by the courts out of thin air is an unconstitutional warrant. There is no probable cause, no supporting Oath or affirmation, and no particular description of the place to be searched or the person or things to be seized. Ergo, there is no constitutional authority to issue a warrant, which would be the only legal basis to perform any search or to seize any property.
Probable cause—or in other words a reasonable, and evidence-based, expectation that a particular search will turn up evidence of illegal activity sufficient to retroactively justify the search—is the only thing that makes a search "reasonable". If the majority of these searches do not uncover evidence of illegal activity then there is no probable cause and they are de facto unreasonable.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
So, we're all Africans then?
Have gnu, will travel.
I guessing are a fucking idiot, because every word you wrote is complete fucking stupidity.
Tourists cause irreparable damage to historical and natural places. The jobs they support are pretty demeaning "yes sir whatever you say sir" types.
Stay home and buy stuff from our factories.
Should he have taken a secured device out of the country to begin with? I work for a small private company, but even we issue blank slate devices with no critical data other than what the person needs to do their work for the specific project they are working on whenever they leave the country. And allowing remote connection to the internal network with only the basic logon is definitely a no-no... Who is running the JPL network security department, the same guy that set up Hillary's server?
So, what kinds of viruses and malware should I take with me?
Ignorant argument. "Native americans" came from somewhere else too. There were also other tribes and cultures BEFORE the "native americans" that were met by Europeans in the 15 and 1600s. The benevolent native americans had either slaughtered or assimilated them all. Sound familiar? I say that AS a "native American", with 1/4 Inupiaq heritage on one side and some of Seneca on the other side. European settlers did some nasty things, yes... but not really much the native americans didn't do to them as well.
Is everyone forgetting that this is not his phone. This is technically government property and I am not sure he would have 4th amendment rights to it anywhere in the country.
Some fucking court thinks it's okay to block Trumps travel ban because it will violate a constitutional right of a non-U.S. citizen in some other country, but the same court will say nothing about violating a constitutional right (4th Amendment) of a U.S. citizen directly at the customs counter in our own country.
Since the phone was issued by NASA, it may have contained sensitive material that wasn't supposed to be shared.
Then he probably should not have taken it on his race car driving vacation in Chile.
Senators, Representatives and Billionaires and it would soon be stopped.
All men created equal, it says.
If by 'it' you mean the Declaration of Independence, then you'd be correct. The Constitution, however, does not contain these words.
You are correct. I would also add, though, that the Fourth Amendment to the constitution does not make any distinction between citizens and non-citizens (i.e., it begins "The right of the people to be secure in their persons", etc.).You might say it is implied to apply only to citizens but I believe that would quickly put you into rather dodgy legal precedent.
You shouldn't refer to Donald Trump that way, even if he does look like someone smeared him in santorum.
What is the point of checking phones, if your a terrorist you'll just not carry a phone or remove all incriminating evidence from the phone, and then download anything you need once you get in the country, what is there that can only be brought into the country by phone.
Perhaps you can point out the law they clarified in overturning Trump's EO. Hint, its not listed in their ruling because they refused to acknowledge the CLEARLY WRITTEN law. They couldn't include the law they overturned, because there was no way to include it and give the ruling they did.
To clarify, the courts have not (yet) overturned Trump's EO; one judge placed a temporary restraining order on the EO and the appeals court kept that temporary restraining order in place until such time as the case is decided on the merits. At best, you might say that the courts are apparently of the opinion a travel ban would cause irreparable harm that could not be easily undone and that the travel ban will likely be overturned. It looks to me like the failure to understand is entirely on your part.
No, not an ignorant argument. You have told me nothing I did not know (apart from your personal history) and that is my point. There was always a before and here is no 'home' to go to. Humans are a migratory species. Not as in annual migrations but as in moves everywhere and settles in. There is truely nothing human that is 'native' anywhere.
Which is the (accurate) generalisation of my point.
Unless you have a native American name, you have a foreign-sounding last name in the USA. Unfortunately, the descendants of the first batch of invading foreigners are having a hissy fit about subsequent foreigners following in their footsteps.
First batch? Not to put too fine a point on this but Donald Trump's grandfather, Frederick Trump, first stepped off the boat in 1885. By that time emigration to America was already well under way. Indeed, I'm all but certain that many of the people making the most noise about "them furriners invading mah Country" are relatively recent arrivals. In fact, let's be honest: there are large swathes of the American population that would just rather the the door had been slammed shut immediately after their family stepped off the boat.
He should not have been carrying the sensitive info.
He should have directed the border thug to contact NASA, and have the higher ups hash it out.
Hopefully JPL security will be pissed off enough to demand the customs agent be prosecuted for espionage (provided there was actually something sensitive on the phone).
And encryption ... y'know can be decoded with the right tool .... which pretty much every government has.
Unless he was authorized to take the phone he violated export laws.
Humans came from Africa was my main point. Everyone else has spread from there. How many generations from a place do you need to be from there. Obviously more than ~2/300 but less than 13,000?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Working for an avionics manufacturer, I'm bound by ITAR - they can fuck themselves, I am NOT breaking Federal law for anybody ... I'm not allowed to reveal that data to anyone outside the company without written legal authority. For fucking good reason. The USA demands it of all its suppliers, wherever you live or work or vacation. So I don't ever carry company data, anywhere. That wasn't hard to solve at all. Send it via email, Post items by UBS. Don't fucking carry anything.
It's lesson 1 for the Accidental Tourist: don't carry shit you aren't prepared to lose.
Same goes for NASA personnel, and the idiot should not be taking NASA materials on his private holiday, so he's a fucking moron that DESERVES to lose his job. He IS a security risk. The worst kind, an arrogant over-privileged geek. I would lose my job, quite rightly, if I did what he did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
I agree, but whatcha gonna do to make that happen?
The police state is getting worse everyday...
I ask for proof that participation trophies are the problem and you send me links to search results of books written by people in order to virtue signal?
I ask for proof that participation trophies are the problem and you send me links to search results of books written by people in order to virtue signal?
Your proof is right there. In those links. Or do you think that studies are virtue signaling? Or are you saying that you don't believe the studies, in which case I'm sure you have your own peered work that disproves that.
Om, nomnomnom...
Whenever I'm traveling out of country encryption keys get deleted before plane lands and restored once safe. Not interested in Jack Bauer wannabees scraping god knows what for god knows why upon my return.
Why did he carry it out of the US in the first place? Why didn't he leave it at home and take a burner on the flight? While I do not like TSA, the fact is, I see no way that they could reasonably believe his claim that the phone contained sensitive material. They still have no reason to look on his phone as far as I can tell, but if they have some legitimate reason to check it, then he should have had something official to stop them. If it did have JPL data on it, then JPL should have something in place to handle this situation.
Not quite. What courts have ruled in previous decisions is that individuals have rights, and individuals don't lose rights just by joining a group. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the difference is profound, especially in the Citizens United case.
Quick background: Michael Moore, during the 2004 election cycle, released Fahrenheit 9/11, which advocated de-electing President Bush. Citizens United complained that this was a violation of the campaign finance reform, but the FEC said it was just a documentary and not advertising subject to campaign finance regulation. So Citizens United did the same thing, but on the other end of the political spectrum. Citizens United created a documentary on Hillary Clinton, and released it during the 2008 election cycle. This time, however, just when the content happens to be critical of a Democrat, the FEC said it was advertising subject to campaign finance regulation, and banned the movie as illegal campaigning.. Hence, the lawsuit.
In arguing the case before the Supreme Court, the court asked how far such a ban could go. Roberts asked a 500-page book had a single sentence in it that said “vote for X” could be banned under this same law. The government said yes, if corporate money were used to pay for the book. Given the first amendment implications banning books, the court ruled it an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment.
While I am not comfortable recognizing corporations as persons, I think they did the right think in this case given the circumstances.
Not quite. The question of whether or not a President can unilaterally nullify a treaty has never been settled. See: Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
There is a good chance the CBP agent knows way too little IT to either figure out what was being searched, and/or stupid enough to have actually harmed the device!
Furthermore, CBP agent have no right to breach secure devices from another US gov't agency.
The "Right of Conquest" was established international law during the time period you are discussing.
I highly suggest you read about it and apply it contextually to the argument you are making.
I think you need both to read more deeply and to be more specific. Generalities are generalities and specifics are specifics. Useful in differing situations. Do not confuse the two and the differing conclusions that may be drawn thereby.