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."

13 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. lack of foresight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:lack of foresight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The flow of traffic doesn't "make it an issue". It isn't an issue, it's a settled point. Americans should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. They most definitely should not be held captive in a tank until they cough up their passwords.

    2. Re:lack of foresight by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Americans should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.

      Note the wording: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [...]. It doesn't say "Americans" anywhere. So while I can't run for US president, if I visit, I am supposed to have thugs keep the [expletive] out of my "papers and effects". Which does include my phone.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re: lack of foresight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but they did have private documents.

      Can you imagine what would have happened if James Madison was crossing the boarder and someone said to him "Pass over all your documents, my scribe is going to take a copy of them"

      There is nothing new here, it is just a document search and seizure.

    4. Re: lack of foresight by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My cellphone doesn't "run my life", why does yours?

    5. Re:lack of foresight by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They never would have anticipated the current flow of cross border traffic that might make it an issue. Not to mention the sheer storage capacity and communication ability that modern computing devices give us.

      Most of them personally arrived across the border more times than the average modern American does. And they carried storage devices with their data!

      And nothing in the Constitution was there as a matter of convenience due to limited storage capacity of government warehouses.

  2. And for everyone else...? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:Great. Why not six years ago? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This problem ain't just on Trump and Republicans.

    Now it is. They control all three branches of government and could stop warrantless searches tomorrow if they so decided.

    And Trump is the very last person who will relinquish the kind of power that warrantless searches give him.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re:Senator Wyden: by maglor_83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The constitution is a list of things the US government is ALLOWED to do. If it doesn't apply in 'no-man's land', then surely they can't do anything.

  5. Re:It's been said... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a whole bunch of them running around. You gotta get people to chase them down and vote them in.

    Now, how many people here really believe that this congress and president are going to pass and sign such a bill? Where were the democrats when they had control of congress and the presidency just eight short years ago? This is just more soap opera. Campaign season never ends.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Bad for the economy by seoras · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bad for the economy by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's funny (in a not so 'haha' way) that the dictatorship that is the UAE (sorry 'monarchy'), is actually less intrusive to travel through than the shining beacon of democracy that the US is supposed to be...

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
  7. Re:As soon as you're invited to visit, I agree (na by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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