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**
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.
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!
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.
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.
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
Then pretty much every case was decided wrong. It's happened before you know. See, for instance, the moving to detention camps of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, which was ruled constitutional by the same screwed up institution. Heavy emphasis on "US citizens" there, because it's kind of important.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there's a 'border search exception' to the 4th amendment, and there's nothing in the Constitution that grants the government that power. This is wrong and it needs to be stopped.
What they should do at the border is verify that you're a US citizen, do their tax thing if you bought stuff overseas, and that's it. People not covered by the Constitution (as in, non-US citizens) we can do what we want just as they can with us when we visit their countries--but this harassment of US citizens has to stop and I don't give a damn what happened on 9/11 that they use as a made up excuse for their illegal behavior. I feel trapped in my own country now because despite being a natural born citizen I don't feel safe leaving. I'm not afraid of other countries (well, most) but I'm very much afraid of my own government when I return.
Now, I don't know if this person is a US citizen or not. A non-US citizen working for the US government is an interesting conundrum but at the very least the power tripping border guard should've checked with someone before proceeding on.
So what? Being a hypocrite is within our rights. Of course you criticize who you vote for! We've done that in the US ever since the very first election; we do it at the presidential level and at the level of the local dog catcher. Even when a president gets a majority vote, in both electoral and popular vote, the president is still accountable to the people and the people are free to express their opinion on the matter.
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)
Just put your data on a micro SD card and hide it in a Rubiks cube
Some more up to date advice:
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/...
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.
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.
The Border guard was just being sure the guy wasn't trying to sneak any climate data into the US
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.
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.
While that's a lovely fiction created by our government, it really does not pass constitutional muster.
It really is cut and dry as written and not really open to "exceptions".
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It is easy for the government to stay within the law, just issue a warrant stating what you are looking for, but the 4th is specifically designed to stop fishing expeditions. That along with the right to travel freely really makes these laws questionable on the surface.
Kent v Dulles:
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
This is a very good suspicion. By downloading a full image of his phone's storage, the FBI or NSA gets photos of all the places he's been along with GPS breadcrumbs. It could very well be that this engineer crossed paths unintentionally with another surveillance target while traveling. Checking these breadcrumbs helps them determine whether they should add him to the surveillance list.
And that is a fishing expedition, and not allowed under the law, without a specific warrant.
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
I object to the citizen part being important. Much of the restraints placed on government by the constitution are worded with phrases like "The government shall not" or "No person shall be required to", with no mention of citizenship. If these are inalienable human rights, and if all men are created equal, then it shouldn't matter which country a person is from, the government has no business violating them.