US-Born NASA Scientist Detained At The Border Until He Unlocked His Phone (theverge.com)

Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by ghoul · 2017-02-12 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

And by him I mean the CBP officer guilty of breach of national security.

--
**Life is too short to be serious**

Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by misexistentialist · 2017-02-12 15:22 · Score: 3, Funny

Should get a medal, revealed this scientist to be weak.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by wvmarle · 2017-02-12 15:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

... and sit in jail himself waiting for the results?
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 15:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

And by him I mean the CBP officer guilty of breach of national security.
That's what I thought.
I see the possibility of a CPB officer taking bribes (or blackmail) from a foreign entity, (government or business) to copy the phones of people who may have access to interesting things. So many are already on the payroll of drug runners.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 15:52 · Score: 5, Informative

That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't get a secret service escort just because you have a security clearance. I was a radar repairer in the Army and had a TS clearance, frequently travelled with classified radar schematics. They didn't dispatch the damn secret service just to escort me from one post to another. That's not how it works. Where in the world would you even get that bizarre idea?
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 16:01 · Score: 4, Informative

For visitors, this is true. But for citizens it gets to be a lot more difficult. It's well understood that as a citizen, they cannot for any reason refuse you entry to the country. They can arrest you the second you enter, but they can't refuse citizens entry. After all, where will they send you if they don't allow you entry? And once they arrest you, all standard constitutional rights are now active. Your warrant claim is only tested for foreigners.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 16:09 · Score: 2, Funny

These are basic Trumped up politics. The constitution applies to them, especially the second amendment, but not to you.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 16:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a clear violation of the constitution to conduct baseless, warrantless searches like that, border or not.
I don't give a shit if the courts have said it's okay. The courts used to say slavery was okay.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by frovingslosh · 2017-02-12 16:41 · Score: 2

That was my thought too, but I was thinking lock away the supposed scientist that just let some oaf bully him into giving up access to a JPL phone that might have had important security related information on it. The oaf will never learn and will continue to enjoy playing the bully, but people need to learn not to give in to them.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by OhPlz · 2017-02-12 16:44 · Score: 2

Stand for something or stand for nothing.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by wvmarle · 2017-02-12 17:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe he did the smart thing, and probably the best when it comes to making a stand.
Under protest unlock the phone, get it done, then report the incident to his employer (as breach of security - employer being NASA has a bit more standing) and report to the press (allowing for public outrage to ensue).
This way he has a fair chance of getting a lot of attention for the case - and it appears it worked, at least the story made it onto /.. If instead he had been held in jail at the border, it may have been a lot harder to get the story out quickly. Now the end result is the same (the story is out & hopefully NASA is enraged over the breach of security, more so than had he stayed in jail and they had gotten him out a week later without the phone having been unlocked), without him having to suffer unduly.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by pegr · 2017-02-12 17:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

The officer may be guilty of misrepresentation, but I blame NASA for not telling folks how to handle a NASA phone. CITIZENS have no requirement to answer any questions or facilitate a search. Leave the phone and keep walking.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by cyber-vandal · 2017-02-12 20:13 · Score: 2

Have you actually been to jail?
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by vipw · 2017-02-12 20:52 · Score: 2

Then maybe we should change the law.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 20:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Have you actually met his wife?
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by mwvdlee · 2017-02-12 21:19 · Score: 2

You judge people by what you know.
GP seems to judge scientists by their (un)willingness to throw a temper tantrum.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by geekmux · 2017-02-12 22:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe he did the smart thing, and probably the best when it comes to making a stand.
Under protest unlock the phone, get it done, then report the incident to his employer (as breach of security - employer being NASA has a bit more standing) and report to the press (allowing for public outrage to ensue).
This way he has a fair chance of getting a lot of attention for the case - and it appears it worked, at least the story made it onto /.. If instead he had been held in jail at the border, it may have been a lot harder to get the story out quickly. Now the end result is the same...
When an individuals actions make the difference between a breach of security happening vs. not happening, I'd say the end result is not the same. I'm thinking NASA would agree, since they're the ones forced to do an investigation and assess impact right now over the transfer of sensitive information to unauthorized persons, which absolutely happened.
Sadly, based on policy, the person responsible for allowing a data leak to happen could now face considerable punishment. For his sake, let's hope that common sense prevails and his employer realizes the only entity truly responsible for this breach and coercion against a US Citizen is the US Government.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by realxmp · 2017-02-12 22:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

NASA more standing than the oldest US LEO?
That is a possibility, some areas of NASA's research is more important to national security than protecting the borders from dodgy porn or similar. The exact nature of certain valving arrangements on liquid fuel rockets might be of interest to North Korea for example. Or some of their more advanced jet propulsion research might be of interest to Russia. The thing is that customs officer had no real good reason to search the phone and plenty of reasons why he shouldn't. Even if he did have the legal right to do it, it might not be the sensible thing to do.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by wvmarle · 2017-02-12 22:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sadly, based on policy, the person responsible for allowing a data leak to happen could now face considerable punishment.
So now it's getting interesting. NASA forbids him to reveal the PIN code (and let's assume there's a law in place that underpins this).
The border inspection requires him to unlock it (and for the sake of the argument, let's just assume they have the legal right to do so - I'm sure the immigration official told the guy so, and being an authority figure, the scientist has or at least should have no reason to doubt this).
The result of this is that one law requires something another law forbids. Talking about being caught between a rock and a hard place!
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Joce640k · 2017-02-12 22:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's not how border security works. They don't need a warrant. The courts have decided this.
There was nothing illegal that happened here.
Even if you're a returning US citizen?
This word "freedom". I don't think you (or most of the USA) knows what it means even though you spend your entire lives repeating it.

--
No sig today...
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Joce640k · 2017-02-12 22:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Papieren, bitte!

--
No sig today...
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Ihlosi · 2017-02-12 23:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Even if you're a returning US citizen?
The only benefit that US citizenship has in this situation that they can't put you on the next flight back to where you came from. But they can still give you the special search treatment.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Type44Q · 2017-02-12 23:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're likely confusing jail with prison; a lot of adult males, even those with clean records, have spent a couple hours in jail at one point or another. This is especially true in the hospitable, Christian and open-minded South (sic).
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Gilgaron · 2017-02-13 00:50 · Score: 3, Informative

That isn't remotely true, you don't even get a fun badge or anything with security credentials
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Gilgaron · 2017-02-13 00:53 · Score: 2

If the work phone can get into the company network, and it is compromised, then the company network is compromised... of course he doesn't have that crap on his phone, but the TSA can make you open your laptop too.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by SharpFang · 2017-02-13 01:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not "after X number of PIN attempts" but after entering the "Wipe me" special PIN.
The officer has no means of discerning if the number they received is the one that unlocks the phone or one that wipes it.
There's even a milder option: Plausible Deniability sandbox. A special PIN that gives access to the phone in "guest mode", unlocks it to something that looks just like a generic phone content of a random citizen, while the real content remains hidden.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by SharpFang · 2017-02-13 01:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nope, you're not getting it.
Scientist X is in the process of being cleared for carrying secret data.
Scientist X is handed bogus data package, informed the data is secret and not to be revealed.
Agent Y performs an illegal search; operation one might expect from an enemy agent, because law-abiding agents of USA would never breach the law.
Agent Y pressures scientist X to reveal the secret content.
If scientist X bows to the pressure and reveals the content, he's deemed unfit to handle genuine secret data. Agent Y did his work right; no actual secret data was revealed, but the weak link was identified and will be eliminated from the process.
If scientist X successfully resists the search, he is deemed fit to handle genuine secret data.
-----------------
Of course we all know it's total bullshit. But one can still dream.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by ghoul · 2017-02-13 02:55 · Score: 2

Nurenberg has it as settled law. Just following orders is not an excuse. Illegal order have to be disobeyed (like the acting Attorney General did) or you are equally guilty.

--
**Life is too short to be serious**
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by TWX · 2017-02-13 03:06 · Score: 2

And the counter-argument to this is that he knows his research, and someone working for a civilian entity he knows the difference between what's been declared sensitive and what's actually sensitive based on cooperation with the ESA, with Russia, etc, so while he makes his objections he does not push them full-bore because he knows that there's nothing truly secret there.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Jason+Levine · 2017-02-13 03:29 · Score: 2

Here's the map of those "border zones."
Note that only 13 states don't have a portion of them within the zone and many states have all or most of their area within the border zone. For example, all of Maine is in the border zone. If you live in Maine, theoretically you could have your car searched without a warrant at any time because you're within 100 miles of the border. I live in NY and it's hard to tell for sure on the map, but I think I live barely outside of the zone. Still, most of New York State is within the zone including all of New York City.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Jason+Levine · 2017-02-13 03:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

And the sad thing is, why couldn't a potential terrorist do this also? Give a fake social media account filled with nothing but liked cat videos and posts about how wonderful it is that Beyonce is pregnant. Give a PIN code that unlocks the phone into "totally not a terrorist user" mode with a browser history of innocuous searches, a bunch of games (e.g. Angry Birds), and other completely normal content. Then, when the border guard lets them in, unlock the phone into "secret evil terrorist" mode.
NOTE: I'm not in favor of what the NASA scientist was put through. Just pointing out that, even in the face of someone arguing "we need this to keep us safe," this doesn't make sense since it could be sidestepped so easily.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Jason+Levine · 2017-02-13 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Trump is like a stopped clock. Occasionally, he says something true, but the reason why he said the thing and the reason why it's true are completely different.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by fgouget · 2017-02-13 03:38 · Score: 2

So now it's getting interesting. NASA forbids him to reveal the PIN code (and let's assume there's a law in place that underpins this).
With NASA being a government agency it's possible there is a law but it still seems unlikely. I'd rather expect it to be part of his employment contract or a related NDA (non-disclosure agreement). Then it's not two laws being at odds, it's a contract and a law. It seems like the law should prevail, but should it really?
Let's say a Boeing employee travels to France and a border officer there requires that he provides the password for his professional phone. Should he hand it over? Wouldn't every American accuse the French government of being in cahoots with Airbus and thus argue that the Boeing employee's NDA trumps (the hypothetical) French law?
I think what this shows is that we don't want border officers to have unlimited search powers.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by JeffOwl · 2017-02-13 03:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, you can say that, but it doesn't matter what you, or me, or anyone else here who isn't on the SCOTUS think. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional. Once they say it is, it is, until they come back later and say it isn't. This is part of the basis for the debate between the strict constitution types and the living document types.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by cellocgw · 2017-02-13 05:23 · Score: 4, Informative

You've clearly never actually read a security agreement document. At least for civilians, any threat of harm to one's self or family is sufficient cause to relinquish the classified material to whomever is making the threat.
Personally, the thought of having to spend more time with a Wyatt-Earp-Syndrome border guard thug meets my threshold of "harm" . Just state that you're giving up the materials unwillingly under threat, and at least in theory you're in the clear.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-13 06:09 · Score: 2

It isn't an illegal search, because he was transiting onto US Soil. There are special cases where 4th and 5th Amendment protections do not apply, and the border is one of those. Yes, even for US citizens. This is why Customs can search your luggage when you are entering in the country.
My suggestion (check with your attorney first) is to offer to "unlock the phone" and navigate anywhere on the phone that the Customs people want to see, to verify that there is no dangerous material on the phone, but never relinquish the custody. There is much easier ways to smuggle info that could be in a phone across the border, like encrypted Email or files storage.
As a libertarian, the whole specter of security theater is ludicrous on just about every level, except for the statists who want to control everyone else's lives.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by thegarbz · 2017-02-13 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's not sad in the slightest. That is a natural consequence of liberty being at odds with freedom. I say let the terrorists in. I'll actually start worrying about them when there isn't a 1000x higher chance of being gunned down as I walk through Chicago than actually getting killed in a terrorist attack.
I don't ask that I government official stands next to me and individually pre-tastes every bit of food I eat either on the off chance that some of it may contain salmonella.
Now that I think of it, that's the opposite of sad, that's a sign of a rational mind at work. I'm not going to quote anyone. I'm just going to say don't give up your liberty for security. It won't end well for you.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by haruchai · 2017-02-13 07:19 · Score: 3, Informative

"There are special cases where 4th and 5th Amendment protections do not apply, and the border is one of those"
The "special cases border" is also a moving target and now extends 100 miles inland from the physical border.
https://www.aclu.org/other/con...
So if you live in Seattle, San Francisco, ALL of Florida, 2/3rds of New England, New York, Charleston, Augusta, Washington, DC & Philly - among many other places where up to 200 million Americans live, you're a "special case" at any time.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by networkBoy · 2017-02-13 07:31 · Score: 2

You'll have to call [employers] lawyers. This is not my phone, it is theirs and I am forbidden from giving out the code.

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by zedaroca · 2017-02-13 08:55 · Score: 2

Both Nasa employees, ordinary people and terrorists should have this. The evil group here is clearly the border patrol. If it wasn't evil, or at least contrary to the country's values, it would be legal inside the country.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by z0idberg · 2017-02-13 18:10 · Score: 2

The officer may be guilty of misrepresentation, but I blame NASA for not telling folks how to handle a NASA phone. CITIZENS have no requirement to answer any questions or facilitate a search. Leave the phone and keep walking.
Good idea. The suspicious* dark skinned guy being questioned by armed** CPB agents at an airport should just put the phone down in front of them, pick up his hand luggage and walk away through the airport ignoring their requests to stop. What's the worst thing that could happen right?
*why else would they want to get into his phone.
**I assume CPB agents are armed. If not I am sure there was someone of authority close by with a deadly weapon.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo by TechnoJoe · 2017-02-14 05:56 · Score: 2

and for the sake of the argument, let's just assume they have the legal right to do so
That is both a HUGE assumption and quite wrong.
They have the legal authority to search the physical device, BUT NOT to compel you to reveal any pin/passcodes. They can't compel you to reveal the contents of your mind, even if their search is hindered by not having it, and courts have ruled that way.
Social Media at the Border: Can Agents Ask for Your Facebook Feed? (No).
If I spent more time on this, I could get you better sources. The real different is whether or not you're a US Citizen. A citizen cannot be denied entry; a green card holder can.

Yawn... by js290 · 2017-02-12 15:03 · Score: 2

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

Re:Yawn... by grcumb · 2017-02-12 16:34 · Score: 2

This guy works on image analysis for telescopes in other words spy satellites which just happen to be large telescopes pointed downwards.
The NRO runs the spy satellites and the Air Force launches them. NASA has nothing to do with them besides providing rockets and launch platforms.
You're right, but there's still a decidedly non-zero chance that the hi-res optics he has access to see a lot of classified things.

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:Yawn... by popoutman · 2017-02-13 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by Scutter · 2017-02-12 15:06 · Score: 5, Informative

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?"

Factory reset before you get off the plane. by quenda · 2017-02-12 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 15:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Basically don't make any funny faces, give back any sass, or make eye contact while going through security or customs lines. The only joy in life these guys have is hassling people. It's a boring job, they're never going to get promoted and they know it, so they're going to take out their bullying instinct whenever they can. This is not government policy, these are individuals trying to prove that they have authority over you.
Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. by hey! · 2017-02-12 16:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Technically CPB agents may need reasonable suspicion to stop you and probable cause to search you, but in practice they routinely exceed their authority, and they usually aren't challenged when they do. People just acquiesce to get it over with. That's a problem because if it remains customary long enough the courts will inevitably tend to view it more positively.
Additionally, the "Border Zone" in which CPB operates is within a hundred miles of the US border including coastlines. This means cities like Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, Sacramento and Portland are "border cities". Two thirds of Americans live where they can be stopped and searched by CPB. The ACLU has a convenient map of the "border zone" on their website.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. by Miamicanes · 2017-02-12 17:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd be more worried that they'd install NSA-grade bootloader-compromising malware capable of surviving anything short of JTAG-reflashing everything from the motherboard BIOS to the hard drive, videocard, and network card firmware, and turn my kick-ass laptop into one that mysteriously crashes for no apparent reason thereafter, even after I've reinstalled Windows multiple times (without even getting into the fact that it would be permanently compromised from a privacy and security standpoint). Think: Sony rootkit on steroids, with the nearly-unlimited of the US government and support from the legal system behind it (for the few who don't know, Sony's rootkit was distributed as a file that auto-ran if you inserted certain audio CDs to play them on your computer. It literally REFLASHED YOUR DRIVE'S FIRMWARE to disable functions used by ripping software).
The question isn't whether the NSA has malware like that. They absolutely do. Google "Advanced Persistent Threat" ("APT"), and know that it's common knowledge that the US, Russia, Britain, China, and Israel (plus countless more) ALL have state espionage agencies with the resources to develop and deploy APTs... and they actively do it every single day.
The NSA is full of self-perceived super-patriots who've willingly sacrificed every shred of their own privacy, and see nothing wrong with inflicting large-scale collateral damage to American citizens' computer hardware in the holy name of protecting the American homeland from any threat... major or minor, real or perceived. To their mindset, if deploying malware to the laptops of 14 million American citizens crossing the border in some given year causes Windows (or any network hardware that might be subsequently used by those laptops) to occasionally crash for no apparent reason thereafter, but enables DHS to prevent a single terrorist attack, it's 100% worth it, and as far as they're concerned, anyone who thinks otherwise is an evil commie terrorist-loving scumbag who hates America.
Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. by Cederic · 2017-02-13 06:03 · Score: 2

Odd. I find making eye contact and smiling works very well. They're doing a boring dull shitty job and they know it, you know it, and why not treat them as humans.
It also shows I'm not nervous, I don't feel threatened by them, I'm comfortable engaging with them and I don't feel I have anything to hide.
Of course, ask me for the disk encryption password for my work laptop and it's going to be a more difficult conversation. One that involves an unfortunate level of memory loss and a recommendation to contact the information security team at my employer, who will be delighted to assist and could I perhaps get a cup of coffee while we wait?

Racism at work by whoever57 · 2017-02-12 15:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:Racism at work by MightyMartian · 2017-02-12 15:53 · Score: 2

What percentage of Muslims do this. Go on, provide the statistic and how you arrived at it.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:wha? by toastjam · 2017-02-12 15:26 · Score: 2

Can't they be upset precisely because CBP did not show authorization to access that level of secrecy?

Could be worse by RevDisk · 2017-02-12 15:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Could be worse by blindseer · 2017-02-12 16:01 · Score: 5, Funny

A friend of mine was on his way to one of those "fun" places in SE Asia. The TSA agent insisted on the soldiers, in full uniform, put their rifles through the X-ray machine. He, a Speicialist, began to protest but was quickly quieted by a senior officer. I guess the man in charge thought is was just easier to fulfill the idiotic request than voice any protest.
Just what did this TSA flunky think they could find "hidden" inside these rifles? Might someone sneak a fingernail clipper inside? I'm not absolutely certain but I'm quite sure they had bayonets in their packs.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re:Could be worse by Grishnakh · 2017-02-12 16:15 · Score: 4, Funny

I see a good way of cleaning up the TSA here. Send military people, fully armed, on commercial flights, carrying classified information, with orders to protect--at all costs--this material from anyone without clearing accessing it. Anyone who attempts to take the material can be shot on sight.
Re:Could be worse by Goldsmith · 2017-02-12 16:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Back when airport screeners were contractors they had the right to make that mistake and get a funny story out of it, but government employees can't legally ask you to turn that laptop on in public. The question itself was enough to get that guy arrested. When I was in civil service with DoD, I would travel without any government electronics if possible, because despite the laws, the TSA was a liability. Traveling internationally, forget about it, I don't think I was allowed to bring anything that had ever been in my lab with me. This NASA guy was on a personal trip to Chile with a phone with sensitive info on it... that's just stupid on his part. Get another phone for the trip.
I used to do development and testing for explosives detectors. Nitro-toluenes are very, very hard to get off your skin and clothes. I was pulled aside for random searching and swabbed for explosives. So I come up positive for DNT residue. I thought this was great, because I wasn't sure the machines they were using at the time would pick up the very small amount of residue from somone who used appropriate lab attire (in-field positive test!). I then told them that the reading wasn't likely a false positive and that I worked with explosives. Maybe I should have led with my Navy ID and an explanation that I was a scientist in the civil service, but they did NOT like that I admitted to having explosives residue on me.
Re:Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 17:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

SE Asia? Probably checking there was no cocaine hidden in the barrels.
Re:Could be worse by Miamicanes · 2017-02-12 17:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Could be worse by Strider- · 2017-02-12 17:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I used to do development and testing for explosives detectors. Nitro-toluenes are very, very hard to get off your skin and clothes. I was pulled aside for random searching and swabbed for explosives.

In a past life, I was a contractor who spent 3 months bouncing between FOBs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The day before I flew home, I was on a CH-53 flying back towards Kuwait where i caught commercial back to Canada. I was sitting next to the door gunner, and as we flew along I think we crossed a range, and he let loose a dozen or so rounds out of the .50 cal. I spent the entire trip home thinking "Please don't swab me, please don't swab me..." and thankfully they didn't. Of course, trying to explain where you had been for three months when you had two in/out visas from Kuwait and a blank spot in between was another matter...

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Re:Could be worse by mhotchin · 2017-02-12 20:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Could be worse by RevDisk · 2017-02-13 01:22 · Score: 2

Probably because I admitted it was potcheen, which is Irish moonshine. I assume he wanted to make sure I was carrying the legal kind, not the illegal kind. Or he was making sure it was actually duty free. He asked if I was importing alcohol or tobacco. I said yep, potcheen and a 21 year old Glenlivet that I picked up in Shannon. He asked to see the bottles and receipt.

So I forked over my SAW until I snagged the bottles. Then traded. He looked at the receipt for about a second then moved onto the next guy.

Congress and the courts know by AHuxley · 2017-02-12 15:38 · Score: 2, Informative

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"

Re:wha? by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 15:54 · Score: 2

More like undertrained and underpaid bottom rung employee decides to exert his authority.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by NonUniqueNickname · 2017-02-12 15:54 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Use a burner phone going out of country every time by sasparillascott · 2017-02-12 15:54 · Score: 2

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....

Re:Trump doesn't run borders by mmell · 2017-02-12 15:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

The US Government. Not a monarchy. Three branches. Checks and balances. Deal with it.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 16:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 16:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by CaptainDork · 2017-02-12 16:14 · Score: 2

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.

it's been like that for a while (EFF) by ooloorie · 2017-02-12 16:15 · Score: 2

Here is the EFF advice for crossing borders with digital devices, from 2011:

https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi...

Re:it's been like that for a while (EFF) by naughtynaughty · 2017-02-12 16:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Some more up to date advice:
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/...

Re:Trump doesn't run borders by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 16:16 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 16:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

What's JPL's policy on taking equipment abroad? by scottpig · 2017-02-12 16:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:Definition of left by hackwrench · 2017-02-12 16:30 · Score: 2

Depending on your definition, pretty much everyone involved with government is Leftist. https://www.reddit.com/r/expla...

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Yosho · 2017-02-12 16:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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)

Re:wha? by hey! · 2017-02-12 16:47 · Score: 2

It should be controversial if he exceeds his authority. And if you expect a border agent to treat a private citizen better than an another government official you're naive.

In an atmosphere of pervasive fear it is especially important to constrain officials to operating with the limit of their authority.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:wha? by OhPlz · 2017-02-12 16:48 · Score: 2

I don't even work in government, but we're trained not to expose any data to our own people unless they have a valid reason to see that data. I imagine government agencies would have similar policies.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Grishnakh · 2017-02-12 16:49 · Score: 2

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?

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Grishnakh · 2017-02-12 16:50 · Score: 2

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.

Getting data across the border by naughtynaughty · 2017-02-12 16:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Just put your data on a micro SD card and hide it in a Rubiks cube

Re:Trump doesn't run borders by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 17:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Definition of left by Demena · 2017-02-12 17:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Pretty much everyone human is leftist. Even Republicans.

The US uses its own (wrong) definitions that confuse the rest of the world.

Re: I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' by bigfinger76 · 2017-02-12 17:16 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 17:25 · Score: 2

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.

Climate data by Camel+Pilot · 2017-02-12 17:33 · Score: 5, Funny

The Border guard was just being sure the guy wasn't trying to sneak any climate data into the US

Re: wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-12 17:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's not how security clearances work. Every person privy to whatever might have been on that phone would have to have the proper clearances to view it. The only thing that would have made sense is for this individual to forfeit the phone at the border and let NASA tell the border guys to fuck off, which probably would have worked just fine. Property of the US govt doesn't have to be subject to US laws, its that whole sovereign immunity thing. I'm sure the phone was encrypted (they needed a PIN) so leaving it with the border guards wouldn't have revealed anything. I'm sure this guy is getting a few lectures on proper protocol for handling devices containing classifieds information.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Demena · 2017-02-12 17:39 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Not a real American by Demena · 2017-02-12 17:48 · Score: 2

You are a native american then?

If not, then as you say, fuck off home. Back where _you_ came from.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by EvilAlphonso · 2017-02-12 18:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Follow Proper Procedure: Call Company's Legal Dept by BBF_BBF · 2017-02-12 19:27 · Score: 2

The proper procedure is: If stopped by any US agent and asked to reveal passwords for equipment issued by one's employer is to refuse to reveal the password until permission is granted from one's employer.

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.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by Rockoon · 2017-02-12 19:59 · Score: 2

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."

Re:Trump doesn't run borders by Darinbob · 2017-02-12 20:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

He didn't have authority to grant permission by buss_error · 2017-02-12 20:17 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-12 20:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

Re:Follow Proper Procedure: Call Company's Legal D by ledow · 2017-02-12 20:48 · Score: 2

"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.

Re:What information? by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-02-12 21:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

Hindsight by nehumanuscrede · 2017-02-13 00:28 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! by mjwx · 2017-02-13 00:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Illegal search by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

NASA more standing than the oldest US LEO?

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.

You mean, "government out of control" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-13 01:29 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Tourism drops by kaur · 2017-02-13 02:02 · Score: 3, Informative

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?

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by Holi · 2017-02-13 02:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2017-02-13 03:18 · Score: 3

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

Re: Fail by mmell · 2017-02-13 04:17 · Score: 2

What Law did the judiciary overrule in this case? When did Congress pass a bill for POTUS to sign into law?

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by tepples · 2017-02-13 04:49 · Score: 2

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".

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by flink · 2017-02-13 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heavy emphasis on "US citizens" there, because it's kind of important.

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.

Courts have nullified the constitution in practice by kbonin · 2017-02-13 06:22 · Score: 2

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...

Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b by JesseMcDonald · 2017-02-13 07:32 · Score: 2

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

Slashdot Mirror

US-Born NASA Scientist Detained At The Border Until He Unlocked His Phone (theverge.com)

111 of 627 comments (clear)