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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
AFAIC, you really have little right to criticize the government if you voted for it, meaning you voted for the people you're criticizing. Doing so just makes you a hypocrite.
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...
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
Key disclosure laws are common around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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.
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.
Depending on your definition, pretty much everyone involved with government is Leftist. https://www.reddit.com/r/expla...
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.
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)
The First Amendment fails to keep you from being a hypocrite and an idiot though.
If you didn't think the candidate would be very good (and apparently they're so bad you're out there complaining about him), then why did you vote for him?
Just like the other poster said: if you complain about the person you voted for, and then you go and re-elect him, you're a moron and a whiner, and your criticism is useless.
That's when you give them the code that wipes the device.
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
Being a hypocrite and an idiot have no effect on your rights.
I didn't vote for whoever you're talking about. Why are you assuming I did?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
That may seem clever, but it may well subject you to criminal penalties (destruction of evidence).
I'm not talking about any candidate in particular, I'm speaking abstractly. Fill in the blank with any candidate you want. I'm also not talking about legal rights here; you're reading too much into my earlier comment.
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.
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.
Re-elect? I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about being elected period.
And if you're voting for the lesser of two evils, then how is it hypocrisy to complain that the lesser evil is still evil?
Most people these days vote against one candidate by voting for the opponent. They're not usually thinking "I love every single thing this person says" when they cast the vote. For example, Dubya runs against Kerry; should the people who complained about some of the things Dubya gone and voted for Kerry even if they didn't like Kerry? Should the people complaining about Obama have gone and voted for Romney even if they don't like Romney? No. If you prefer candidate A over candidate B then you should vote for candidate A even if that candidate isn't perfect.
The Border guard was just being sure the guy wasn't trying to sneak any climate data into the US
Oh, Yes!
Two political parties, 300 million voters.
You are expecting a one-to-one relationship on every possible issue?
Look dear, you need to take some basic lessons in thinking if you are attempting a species upgrade. Human thought can be sophisticated.
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.
I made no claim to that. The only reason that I responded was because it is extremely rare to find such bald stupidity. Even the least of us reason better than that. There were so many flaws with his (lack of) reasoning that trying to address anything would have been like trying to address an ever growing fractal image while the actual significance reduces. An exercise in futility and a miserable task to attempt.
So, I just addressed the basic stupidity. You can not get one to one correspondences with different numbers and to expect so borders on the insane.
It might seem a bit ad hominem but that is not the intent. The intent was to address the basic flaw from which fractal silliness follows before we descended into it.
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.
He may very well have represented NASA on the site in Chile - it was electric cars, something that NASA has an interest in.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
And if you're voting for the lesser of two evils, then how is it hypocrisy to complain that the lesser evil is still evil?
It is hypocritical to help evil and then complain about the evil you helped.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still supporting evil.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
Yes, the candidates were not really "evil". It's a figure of speech. It means voting for the candidate that is the least imperfect.
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...
"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).
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.
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.
OK, to state the blindingly obvious:
1. You generally only have two options, and usually those options are "If you don't vote for me, the even worse one gets in." Trying to prevent Neo-Mussolini from being elected by voting for Neo-Nixon doesn't mean you support Neo-Nixon's views.
2. All politicians do things they weren't associated with previously.
3. All politicians support a range of policies, there's never going to be an exact match between a voter's and the person they vote for.
4. Politicians require feedback from you, the citizen. Saying people who support a particular politician should shut up if that politician does something they don't support essentially ends that feedback loop.
5. People change their minds.
So no, nobody's a hypocrite for criticizing a government they voted for. When you're a little older, and vote for the first time, you'll learn this the hard way.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is why you have such bad candidates. Ergo, it's all your fault.
Except for things like local elections, I've literally never seen an election with only two candidates.
If you'd pick a better candidate in the first place, you wouldn't feel the need to expend so much energy in "holding them accountable".
The Trump people are doing the right thing from their perspective: they're covering for him because it keeps them from looking like idiots for voting for him. What does that mean for you?
Thus many conservatives complained when the neo-cons went on a massive spending spree when they had both houses of congress in the early 2000's. That was not what we had voted for and so we complained, and pulled our support leading to the Democrats taking over.
Oh bullshit. It *IS* what you had voted for. You were just too stupid to recognize it. It's always been plainly obvious that GOP politicians will go on a spending spree whenever they're in power. So again, you prove my point: you have no right (I don't mean a legal right) to criticize the people you elected: it just proves that you're a moron for electing them.
The only people who don't have credibility to complain are those who can't be bothered to vote.
Wrong. Anyone who didn't vote for the winning candidate has every right to complain. Obviously, if you didn't vote for the winner, you're not getting what you were promised, and are not hypocritical in pointing out how the winner is doing a bad job. Basically, you can say "I told you so" to all the idiots who voted for the winner.
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.
Wrong. You hit it in #1: by assuming "you generally only have two options", and voting accordingly, you're guaranteeing a bad candidate gets elected, so it's really your fault and you're a hypocrite for complaining about the person you voted for.
As for #4 and #5, I don't think this is what we're talking about here. We're really talking about people voting for a candidate based on either #1, or some dumb idea of what they think the candidate is going to do (see the AC responder who's a conservative and then complains about the GOP going on a spending spree) and then gets mad when the candidate does what was blindingly obvious to everyone who wasn't a blind-faith believer in that party and its obviously false rhetoric ("we believe in small government!!") when there's decades of history proving that that party does something entirely different when in power.
You're a fucking moron, and it's proven by your assertion that there's only two political parties. Funny that you talk about "basic stupidity" and you can't even figure that out.
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.
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
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.
Then what action on election day is effective against evil?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What evidence? Of which crime?
Come on, there isn't even probable cause.
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.
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.
B.S. I work for NASA and was previously in the Air Force. You cannot take a government phone with any kind of restricted information on it. Period, end of discussion. Since nobody at the Verge did much in the name of research beyond this guys Facebook posts, I wouldn't be surprised if a whole lot of information about this incident isn't left out. When I went out of the country on business I was specifically given a laptop that had nothing that could not be viewed by the public. I was also told and signed a form that stated I would not put any classified or restricted information on it and that I had no expectation of privacy. Its government property not yours, what if the the Chilean government had detained him? He is going to tell them no? That's why we have regulations in place on taking devices out of the country. In fact if you take your own phone you still have to sign a form saying your doing so and the it is not connected to a government email account. Every year we take a refresher course on the rules.
And the fact he had to sign a waiver saying that there was no restricted information on it and that he no reasonable expectation of privacy. But hey, the story was on the Verge and corroborated by Facebook so it must be true right?
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
I hate to break it to you, the US has never been an "example to the world". But I will admit that it didn't used to be the laughing stock it became just over 15 years ago.
So, we're all Africans then?
Have gnu, will travel.
The laws allowing for this search exist both in the US and most other countries and have for decades. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with who currently occupies the White House. Even if it did, I doubt if Trump's had time in the last 2 weeks to personally replace every border agent with the imaginary fascist thugs you seem to think exist.
International travellers have been telling stories like these forever back to the days of being requested to open up your locked briefcase.
The basic rule is if you don't want to comply, and you still want to enter the country in question, then either contact your employer for further instructions and wait it out or be ready to surrender your device which will be returned whenever border services decides they're done with it.
There is nothing new here.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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.
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.
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.
Moron? No, that would apply to people like you who so obviously lie and make false claims. Like you. Now would you please like to defend your assertion that there are only two political parties? It is not a claim that I made or would make since it is obviously intrinsically false. Your malice or your mistake I do not know (or care).
Now you want to talk about basic honesty? A characteristic you seem to lack in equal measure to intelligence? You think a lie and a straw man will win you an argument? You think it demonstrates your intelligence? The fact that you seek to 'win' rather than seek the truth shows your maturity.
Now would you please like to defend your assertion that there are only two political parties?
I never asserted that, you did you fucking moron. Holy shit.
Nor did I but you claimed I did.
My advice to you is to stop digging....
The crime/probable cause that justifies them unlocking your phone.
If you pull this stunt at the border, they'll likely refuse admission.
If you pull this stunt with a court, they'll charge you with destruction of evidence.
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
Um, aren't the two the same thing? To use D&D terminology, most "evil" people aren't chaotic evil, people who gleefully do sadistic horrible things in order to cause suffering for others. Most of them are the lawful-evil or neutral-evil types. These days, we call them "sociopaths" usually: they're people who have little or no conscience, and only work for their own benefit and self-interest, not anyone else's. "Self-serving" sounds like a pretty polite way to describe them. The only people who would fit the "chaotic-evil" description are true psychotics.
From what I've seen of Trump, I don't think he's a psychotic, I think he's mostly self-serving though. Notice how some of his actions are directly benefiting his businesses. But that's not unusual for highly corrupt politicians. Hillary seemed to be just the same, just less obvious about it, and not in league with such horrible people (e.g. Bannon), and not likely to pick such horrible cabinet members who'll truly harm the country in a significant way (e.g. DeVos, Sessions). But I do think Hillary was (and still is) evil. But at least she would have done some somewhat useful stuff in order to appease her base and to get her place in the history books and get re-elected. I think Trump is doing the same now, but his base is very different and the policies they want are far more destructive.
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
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...
What foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding was underway? None. And if there was, they'd have a search warrant naming the individual and what they're wanting access to. This was a fishing expedition, nothing more.
Also, it's unlikely that US customs and border patrol would deny entry to a resident of the US. They could detain the guy, but to what end? The phone was wiped, there's nothing else to pursue. It's not actionable because he wasn't suspected of a crime, it wasn't evidence.
Border control doesn't have to prove a crime; there is no innocent until proven guilty or due process. Admission for non-citizens to the US is not a right, it's a privilege. If you wipe your phone when they ask to inspect it, that is likely more than enough justification for them to exclude you.
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)
He's a US citizen.
In the message you were responding to, I was referring to general circumstances where key disclosure laws apply.
Even in his case, it would have been risky to erase the phone. For example, if they suspected him of espionage, they might have taken erasing the phone as justification for detaining him and then searching his home with a fine tooth comb.
Unless you know what you're being investigated for, erasing the phone may cause you more trouble than unlocking it. In fact, even just having the kind of software that can erase the phone in response to certain passwords would be viewed as suspicious by courts, as would "deniable encryption" software.
I'm not saying that it's right, I'm simply pointing out the way it is: if you play such games with border control or police, the cost to you may be quite high.
So you advocate not voting at all?
Ah yes, the bullshit false dichotomy argument of the people supporting evil.
Go away and dont come back until you learn your logical fallacies.
"His name was James Damore."
It must be nice living in such a black and white world.
The black and white world is the one painted by the evil supporters, whose arguments always rely on there somehow being only two choices
"His name was James Damore."
If he was suspected of espionage they should have secured a warrant. They also can't tear apart his home without a warrant. I get that you're taking the path of least resistance, but I'm at the other end. I'd rather risk further provocation in order to defend what I think is right. The problem is, not many people will do that anymore, the authorities know this, and our rights are becoming indefensible.
If he uses a password that causes his phone to self-destruct, that is just the kind of probable cause they may need to get a warrant.
Both key disclosure laws and border control are unsettled legal and moral areas, so I don't even presume to know what's right.
Government has become bigger and more intrusive, certainly. On the other hand, people probably have also become more knowledgeable and less respectful of government. I think that's part of the political upheavals we're seeing right now.
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.