Slashdot Mirror
Wyden To Introduce Bill To Prohibit Warrantless Phone Searches At Border (onthewire.io)
Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A senator from Oregon who has a long track record of involvement on security and privacy issues says he plans to introduce a bill soon that would prevent border agents from forcing Americans returning to the country to unlock their phones without a warrant. Sen. Ron Wyden said in a letter to the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security that he is concerned about reports that Customs and Border Patrol agents are pressuring returning Americans into handing over their phone PINs or using their fingerprints to unlock their phones. DHS Secretary John Kelly has said that he's considering the idea of asking visitors for the login data for their various social media accounts, information that typically would require a warrant to obtain. "Circumventing the normal protection for such private information is simply unacceptable," Wyden said in the letter, sent Monday. "There are well-established procedures governing how law enforcement agencies may obtain data from social media companies and email providers. The process typically requires that the government obtain a search warrant or other court order, and then ask the service provider to turn over the user's data."
If only our forefathers would have had the foresight to create some sort of document that prevented warrantless searches, then none of this would be necessary.
It's disappointing how these measures always seem to be about protecting the rights of whichever host country is involved, while completely ignoring any intrusion/violation of the rights of visitors.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Democrats and Republicans agreeing on something.
That the traditional function of a Senator for Oregon is to drive the rest of the Senate crazy.
In this case, more power to him!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Although it should go without saying, and certainly without legislating, once American citizenship is established at these checkpoints the full protection of the Constitution against unlawful search and seizure immediately kicks in.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Where was he when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?
This problem ain't just on Trump and Republicans.
Hell, Trump's the only one who even MIGHT care to address our overweening surveillance state.
My first question is why this has to be a bill, when through the normal course of judicial process such evidence would be tossed out by courts for being improperly obtained.
Then I remembered that in the area of national security and border / immigration enforcement, the executive branch has pushed their own discretion so far that Congress / courts really do have to put protections like this into law for it to be heeded. Basically they have been cut out of the loop of immigration and border enforcement as just bystanders, because the executive branch has all the guns, and it only comes to Congress/courts' attention when someone makes it in (and isn't kicked out immediately) and survives long enough to file a habeus petition.
The real check and balance needed would be for border agents and officials who abuse their authority to be penalized for it.
Does it going to enumerate everything that is possible to search? What about Phablets?
As a Canadian who is planning a trip to thr US this August, I really want to just come to your country hassle free, so I can spend my money.
My whole family (4 of us) are plank
That is what I do, especially when flying in from Europe and Asia, since the USA agents are much more friendly and reasonable in Canada.
However during the last few years, I refused to visit Australia, now that it is not possible to opt out of dangerous full body airport scanners there. At least in the USA I can get a safe full body massage alternative, which I always do instead of flooding the top 1mm of skin with harmful EM radiation.
Looking at the security theatre, censorship, and surveillance being done now in Australia, I don't see how you can say with a straight face that it is better for visitors than the USA is.
This is outrageous and an affront to our troops and veterans. Yes, as an American citizen you have the right to enter the country, but you gave up the right to absolute privacy when you left. The threat of illegal immigration and ISIS terrorism is simply TOO great to allow anyone to enter the country without proper vetting and examining suspicious peoples electronics is a completely reasonable thing. I plan to donate a large sum of money to whichever Republican is best set up to defeat this fucker in the next election and I hope a lot of my true American patriot friends on slashdot are willing to join me.
I am in full support of this.
However, I give it about 5 seconds before some DHS stooge argues that entering the country counts as probable cause and the same judge that allowed Stop and Frisk falls for the same equally bullshit reasoning.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The US courts have decided several times that a restriction on the US government (ie. The constitution) doesn't apply in so-called 'border' zones. The easiest way to catch terrorists is obviously to declare the whole country a border zone. I'm surprised that the DEA/FBI/DHS/local LEO aren't kidnapping people and dumping them into a border zone, where people don't have any rights.
This wrong on a number of levels: 1) it violates the spirit of the CFAA, where use of an account is limited to a single user and shared use may be crime. 2) Once an account is shared, the provider and the police are unable to prove that malicious or nefarious deeds were performed by the account owner. The police are shooting themselves in the foot by invading a suspect's account. 3) If the account is shared, the provider is unable to get accurate data on what the account owner says, does and likes, destroying the sale value of that data.
Given how much data police and intelligence agencies suck from social networks, it behooves those corporations to protest this use of their property as much as possible. Yet Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and friends have uttered blinding silence while also protesting that government intrusion via an NSL is reported to the public.
The constitution and bill of rights only has meaning inside us borders because the courts enforce it. Once you get outside you get so-called constitutional free zones like airports, torture chambers in Guantanamo, and extra judicial killings of American citizens not even charged with a crime. That's how much respect they have for the principles of the constitution, ZERO.
This is a phenomenal idea, specifically referring to the password, haha.
I normally can't be bothered to travel to the US. It feels too much like a totalitarian country - you need to be actually afraid of the (many) branches of police, even if you are a law abiding, decent person. They can do as they please with your data, property and personal freedom. I stopped dealing with the Americans 2 years ago, and I am not looking back, especially after they have elected that clown of a president.
Before Republitards take office.
This shit can't be good for the US economy. Tourism and airlines will be most affected.
I live in NZ but I'm from the UK. I used to live in SF Bay and have friends there. So when flying home to the UK for a visit I would fly via SFO.
Not anymore. Even flying through the US without going into the country is like an Orwellian nightmare.
So I fly Emirates via Dubai. It's a damn shame as used to think of California as a 2nd home and loved visiting there.
I can't be alone in my boycotting.
The saddest thing is that modern America starting to look more and more like the old USSR.
If you demand people hand over passwords, expect to have yours demanded of you when you cross the border headed somewhere else.
This is how most biometric collection works - but, fair is fair.
Sigh.
..don't panic
Sen. Ron Wyden will not witness the "sun rise" on Feb. 21, 2018, or any other.
You must really hate Tachikomas.
Everyone hates them, but who can find them? They're always cloaked!
I don't think border patrol should be searching phones, we agree on that. We disagree on the reason why.
> So while I can't run for US president, if I visit
If you visit, sure, no unreasonable search. Just as I treat visitors in my home respectfully, as I'm sure you do in your home.
Consider when a couple of thuggish looking guys, strangers, show up at my door one night. Not only am I not required to invite them in, but because my wife and 2 year old daughter are inside, I have a responsibility to my wife and daughter to NOT bring potentially dangerous people in. It is my duty to take some care regarding who I allow inside.
If you want to, you can throw a nude party in your house, and say "if you want to join the party, you need to be nude". Or you can throw a sober party, and say "if you want to come to my party, don't show up drunk." I can choose whether I want to come in under those conditions or not. You haven't violated my rights by setting ground rules for your party.
When someone standing at the border requesting entry, a country has no obligation to let them in. They in fact have some degree of responsibility to exercise a degree of care about who comes in and what they bring with them. Perhaps the government has no right to search X, for any X, but they DO have the right to say "no you can't come in", or impose any conditions they feel are proper before granting entry.
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
On the other hand, it would be wrong for me to block your entry into your *own* house, saying "in order to go home, you have to get nude." That's the case of US citizens. Unlike people who wish to visit, peope have a right to enter their own home.
That said, I thinking searches the phones of visitors as a general policy is just a bad idea. I think it's inefficient, ineffective, and a bit rude.
And they talk in really high, girly voices. So annoying.
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
*You're
Google Play
I protect my privacy
HA! oh, wait - you're serious?
It has long been a standing point of the supreme court that when the word citizen is used, it refers to American citizen only, but when people is used, it refers to everybody including and not limited to visitors and illegals. Which is why illegals still have rights, even if it is not all of them.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
...a Native American what happens when you don't control immigration...
...how a cell telephone will make my daily routine of waking up at noon, smoking pot and drinking till I pass out any more efficient.
not sure what your treying to say. do you not know english enough to understand what he was saying? none of us native speakers had a problem understanding what he was saying. or is it that you don't understand that different types of places you communicate have different grammar rules? i bet youre a hit in replying to people's text messages. by the way, your post does not follow proper grammare rules. what is a star? and what you wrote is not actually a sentense.
this site is for americans and native english speakers. it's not a journal, newspaper, or email to your boss at work. i understand that in your esl class they only taught proper grammer, and you're proud you know basic proper grammar. that doesn't mean we don't. it means we're typing this with a thumb while sitting on the toilet and watching tv - a slashdot comment does not get 100% of our attention. this is not the place to show off your english skill curryhead. fuck off and go to a site in your own language and correct people there.
Perhaps the government has no right to search X, for any X, but they DO have the right to say "no you can't come in", or impose any conditions they feel are proper before granting entry.
The problem is that citizens then become virtual prisoners in their country, because if they leave their basic rights don't have to be respected when they try to cross the border.
More over, your analogy of inviting people to your home is flawed. Countries are not private homes, they are public spaces and the government has very different responsibilities and power than a homeowner. And in any case, the border is not a special place. You would be outraged if the government wanted to search people in public areas just to check that they don't have anything illegal in their bags or on their phones.
The border is not special. All rights and protections should apply. That means making a trade-off between safety and freedom, and as ever one is worthless without the other.
That said, I thinking searches the phones of visitors as a general policy is just a bad idea. I think it's inefficient, ineffective, and a bit rude.
And a massive security risk. We all know how dumb it is to plug random USB devices into your PC. It's basically giving the world access to US border and immigration data.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
you.. you think mm-wave means it penetrates the top 1mm of your skin? holy fuck man - what are you doing on this site? you know light is "EM radiation" - don't you? of course you don't. Your phone, radio, your wifi, lightbulbs, airport scanners - all "EM radiation." And no - there's no x-ray machines - they're mm-wave machines. you know, like your fucking cell phone and wifi. or do you think those give you cancer too?
there is ionizing radiation, there's radio, there's stupid radiation. I'm feeling a lot of stupid radiating off of you right now. hope I don't get cancer of the nutsaack.
When someone standing at the border requesting entry, a country has no obligation to let them in. They in fact have some degree of responsibility to exercise a degree of care about who comes in and what they bring with them.
Sure. Which is why I have to apply for a visa or other permit. And I don't find it unreasonable if customs check that I don't bring drugs or explosives or similiar in my luggage.
The don't need any of my passwords for that though - other than the code to the suitcase lock. They don't need any social media passwords. Not a problem for me in particular, since I don't do social media anyway. (And in general, most social media is hosted in the U.S. so they can tap into facebook if need be.)
They also don't need the phone PIN or pc passwords. A device only holds information, not drugs/explosives. Keep insisting on things like that, and they will see a decline in tourism. If I want to bring secrets on a pc, I know how to do that. Steganography - cops can't ask for the passwords to a secret they have no idea exists. But why should I have to bother with such things. Hi-tech terrorists will, of course.
Not everyone needs a visa to enter. For those, CBP has to perform a level of scrutiny, and the need to determine if the visitor is really a visitor. A visitor should come here to visit, not seek employment, support themselves, and return home. Part of phone checks for visitors is to do a check to see if there are plans to work in the USA. Should there be rules around it? Yes. Should they be able to do it? Yes.
So how about reciprocity? Would you hand over your phone, your phone password, your email password, your facebook password, when you want to visit Canada, Mexico, England, Russia, China, North Korea?
And even if were happy with it, it would still be a federal crime under US law. So we are basically making travel illegal, and you just hope that you do not get caught...
So how about reciprocity? Would you hand over your phone, your phone password, your email password, your facebook password, when you want to visit ...?
No. You simply choose not enter the country.
I agree. As far as I know, there is little to be gained from a policy of searching phones.
I can think of some rare circumstances in which it might be the most efficient way to resolve a doubt, perhaps with consent. Consider a young man, maybe 20 years old, is wanting to visit and bring a $50,000 of cash across the border. He says the cash is for his business buying medical lab equipment at auction in one country and bringing it to the other. Given the total circumstances, his story seems suspicious. A quick look at his Facebook and a glance at his text messages may establish whether he appears to actually be in the medical lab equipment business, or if it looks more likely he's intending to run drugs. That's an unusual type of case though, and could probably be handled with a consent search ("sir, this pile of cash looks suspicious, mind if I look at your phone for a minute?)
There are a lot of judgement calls in these kinds of things, and looking at someone's phone *will* tell you a lot about what kind of person you're dealing with, but in general I don't think it should be routinely. Probably in most cases only consensually, when there is reason to check somebody out a bit, you could give them the option of speeding up the process by letting someone look through their phone rather than waiting to hear back from more official inquiries into their background.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here:
> The problem is that citizens then become virtual prisoners in their country, because if they leave their basic rights don't have to be respected when they try to cross the border.
Are you talking about when a citizen is coming back home? I did say in my post citizens have a right to come home, in general*, and they don't (shouldn't) have to give up other rights to do so. On the other hand, citizens of Syria don't have a *right* to come to the United States - they are invited subject to conditions.
Do you mean if the US searches Syrian citizens, Syria may retaliate by being rude to US citizens? Too late - Syria hasn't respected human rights for many decades.
* For a few countries known to sponsor or harbor terrorists and such, I have no problem with a policy of "if you choose to go to Syria, be forewarned a) Syrians may chop your head off and b) the US will search you thoroughly when you return." You can decide whether you're willing to risk your life and a search before you travel to a hotbed of violence and terrorism like Syria.
Hey, it's not his fault you are an illiterate dullard.
You wrote all that because someone corrected a grammar mistake? I doubt anyone will even read it. For a start, it's hard to read because of all the typos and grammar errors. Secondly, you must have gotten really angry about that little correction. Do you have no life at all?
Personally, I agree with the home analogy. A country has no obligation at all to allow anyone in. And the govt does have an obligation to protect its people. Therefore it necessarily has to perform certain security checks at its borders, and turn some people away.
got a great life. I travel internationally monthly, speak 5 languages, have a bunch of money. what I don't do is socialize on slashdot. It also takes me about 60 seconds, while taking a shit, to type that page of text. and you're confusing me being pissed off with me making fun of someone and enjoying it. you know all those kids in highschool that laughed at you and beat up your nerd ass? I guess in your world they had no life and were angry. in the real world - the one who has no life is a guy who grammar corrects comments - the loser nerd. you.
as far as a few grammar errors making things hard to read for you? that's interesting -normal people understand things like that just fine. guess you're a nerd who's a bit on the dumb side. and oxy-pad moron so to say. got the bad part of autism w/o the good. sucks to be you, funny as hell for us though.
Are we really supposed to accept news from a writer that can’t correctly name a federal agency that’s been in existence for more than a decade? U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component of the Department of Homeland Security. The group under CBP that works the ports of entry is the Office of Field Operations or OFO. The U.S. Border Patrol is responsible for the area between the ports of entry.
I hate to agree with supporters of the enhanced scanners, but fellow AC is correct. There was some concern that the backscatter machines (the blue boxes you stood between) increased your risk of cancer because they did use low dose x-rays. At least in the US, those machines are being/have been phased out. The millimeter-wave scanners (the big cylinders with a rotating tool) emit non-ionizing microwaves, so they won't give you cancer. This all ignores the fact that you're consenting to a strip search without reasonable suspicion every time you are scanned by one, regardless of whether the TSA agent (in the US) sees a gingerbread man or your actual body. If you want to object, object on those grounds. For a healthy adult, the machines are safe.
Perhaps the government has no right to search X, for any X, but they DO have the right to say "no you can't come in", or impose any conditions they feel are proper before granting entry.
False equivalency. You have the right to exclude others from your home because you own your home. Your rights of ownership are founded, ultimately, in the homesteading of previously unowned land though the labor of an original owner, plus an unbroken chain of voluntary contracts passing the rights to that land from its original owner to you. The government, by contrast, has no such legitimate claim to ownership of the entire country, and consequently does not have the right to exclude anyone from entering.
On the other hand, it would be wrong for me to block your entry into your *own* house... Unlike people who wish to visit, peope have a right to enter their own home.
Anyone with the right to enter their own home also has the right to invite others to enter. It would be wrong for you to block the entry of my invited guests into my house.
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
Inside, outside, or in transition, your rights as a human being should always be respected.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I cannot stomach such a policy, but I'll turn over my recently wiped phone and my password "4thamendment" to them.
When I leave the airport, I'll have Google Play reload everything and plug-in my uSD card, and I'll be good to go.
Yes, it's an inconvenience, but I protect my privacy and the US Security Theater can continue it's performances.
When they discover that your phone 'has been wiped for the border' you can expect them to become much more interested in you. Because 'obviously you are hiding something'.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I understand your "block entry to your own home" argument, but:
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
I think this clearly shows the problem with your argument. People's rights as human beings should be fully respected everywhere, without exceptions.
To verify people are not "potentially dangerous" there is a visa interview and a background check.
Maybe the interview and the background check could/should be even more strict (it is already the worst). If they consider necessary to check people's phones, social media stuff, etc, they should request that in the visa application, when the person is still in his own country, not have thugs detaining and intimidating people at the border, threatening (at best) to make them lose a ton of money, doing stuff no country would allow.
No- there should be no restrictions. Based on your logic every village, city, county, and state should setup borders with security guards to check for "dangerous" people. The only danger is a threat to our freedom of travel. Nobody should be able to violate a persons rights regardless of where they are. Especially to violate their personal possessions for political reasons as they do now (they are attacking people based on their beliefs). It makes no sense to say "we'll protect your right to think within the united states", but won't let you in because of what you think. We already have "dangerous" people under this screwed up logic. No. We should have open boarders and no boarder guards. You can arrest people for crimes of violence once they've committed said crimes within your region.
http://www.freestateproject.org/ A migration of those who prefer liberty and freedom over "safety" (which is always little more than security theatre) to New Hampshire for the purpose of pursuing a free society/state. Or check our http://www.shiresociety.com/ for those who are more anti-state. Same basic idea without a state.
http://www.freekeene.com/ A news site recording and publicizing the liberty and freedom being fought for and coming about in New Hampshire thanks in big part to those who are moving here. Everything from new laws instituting constitutional carry (no permit required to conceal your gun) to win on crypto currencies (a lot of the restrictions on financial freedom are being undone). We don't have a car insurance requirement, seat belt laws (over 18 unfortunately only), and we're working to get rid of driver licenses, vehicular registration, and license plates. Not to mention lots of other stuff. We got a law passed which gives a defendant the right to inform the jury of a jurors right to vote their conscious. A juror has the right to vote not guilty even if they think someone is guilty of a crime. This is intended to be the last check on the laws. Unfortunately every other state and the federal government ensures juries remain uninformed of this right and are often instructed wrongly that they must vote guilty if they believe the person committed the crime.
I don't have a "social media account". I really don't. I have a crap Motorola dumb phone from 2010 that's been dropped in the toilet twice. I really do. Am I to expect harassment when entering the US with a valid visa?
It's fair enough to do checks on visitors coming in to your country - and if you so wish this can include social media checks and asking people to turn over their passwords.
However, the way this is currently being done is not ok - if you're going to do these checks they should be done in advance, and with warning so that if visitors don't want to hand over their passwords or information they can choose not to go to the US, or be aware that it's going to happen. At the moment people are turning up to the US and being told that, despite having valid VISAs or other entry permission, they need to hand over their private information or be refused entry. Given that at this point they've organised whatever they were expecting to do while there, and are quite likely on the US end of a long flight, this leaves them with two choices: either be refused entry and incur whatever financial/social losses from that (after spending a substantial amount of time in US border custody) or give up your private information. This is highly morally dubious, to say the least.
In short, if you're going to require info from people get that BEFORE you give them documents saying they're allowed in. To use your analogy, visa's are an invitation to someone to enter the country. In the same way that it would be disrespectful to invite someone to your house who lives 8 hours away and then refuse them entry when they turn up because they won't show you their bank details, don't do that to people crossing the border. Do it before you extend the invitation/give a visa.