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**
Federal government law enforcement agency requires federal government employee to unlock federal government owned phone for inspection. Controversial!
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.
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!
US is fundamentally broken. From example to the world to laughing stock.
The US Government. Not a monarchy. Three branches. Checks and balances. Deal with it.
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
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.
So what? Being a hypocrite is within our rights. Of course you criticize who you vote for! We've done that in the US ever since the very first election; we do it at the presidential level and at the level of the local dog catcher. Even when a president gets a majority vote, in both electoral and popular vote, the president is still accountable to the people and the people are free to express their opinion on the matter.
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.
Actually, you have the right to criticize the government as much as you want, regardless of who you voted for or even if you didn't vote at all, thanks to something call the first amendment. Suggesting otherwise makes you anti-free speech.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
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.
SE Asia? Probably checking there was no cocaine hidden in the barrels.
TSA confiscates nail clippers from pilots, too. The fact that there's a literal AXE hanging behind them in the cockpit (so they can smash the window and escape if the plane crashes and they somehow manage to survive long enough for the axe to be useful) has no effect on TSA's logic.
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...
The logic is that the TSA doesn't 'know' the person in front of them is, actually, a pilot. He's just *dressed* like a pilot. If the TSA waves through pilots, then the bad guys will just pretend to be pilots.
See 'Catch Me If You Can'.
So, not *completely* stupid. The completely stupid part is taking toenail clippers away from anyone at all.
Depending on how the phone or that corporate laptop is set up, they will also gain access to (parts of) the corporate network. Do border cops have the authority to search that as well? I'm all for protecting my privacy and the privacy of my clients by applying good security practises, but protecting your privacy is not at all the same as protecting your right to privacy. You can bring a blank laptop through customs and work through VPN, but you shouldn't have to. How about waking up your government to the fact that today's mobile devices constitute a hell of a lot more than the electronic equivalent of physical work-related papers and books, and contain acutely privacy-sensitive material that cops have no business poking their noses into? (Good luck with that...)
And what if they come across an encrypted file or a password vault, do they also have the right to ask for access to those? Because if they do, then you're also going to have to change the passwords on perhaps hundreds of accounts. If a cop copies the keys to my front door, you bet I'll be changing the locks, and that goes double for digital keys; I have very little faith in their cyber-security.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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).
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
That's the point.
The same people who whinged and bitched about Obama now want you to shut up about their golden boy. They're so brainwashed that they cant even see they're party to destroying freedom in the US. If it means keeping the other team down, they'll happily sacrifice everything.
Also dont get used to being able to criticise your government. They're already eroding that right by going after the press that isn't towing the party line. Those people telling you to shut up over the internet, they could be out in brown shirts telling you to do it in person sooner than you think.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
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.
This is a very good suspicion. By downloading a full image of his phone's storage, the FBI or NSA gets photos of all the places he's been along with GPS breadcrumbs. It could very well be that this engineer crossed paths unintentionally with another surveillance target while traveling. Checking these breadcrumbs helps them determine whether they should add him to the surveillance list.
And that is a fishing expedition, and not allowed under the law, without a specific warrant.
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
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.