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.
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
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.
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.
Bills that are expected to pass have bipartisan support. Bills that are just posturing are introduced by the minority party and never get out of committee.
Most of that has been tested in courts over the decades AC.
e.g. level of suspicion for canal drug smuggling.
The issue of any particular vehicle been covered by an administrative warrant so roving patrols could counter border smuggling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Recall Congress gave a lot of new power to search for terrorists over the past years. The need to uncover terrorist communications was also considered.
No US court or gov is going to allow sanctuary to terrorist material and has given the legal ability to search at a boarder.
No level of suspicion is needed. No person can block a search with demands for dignity or claim privacy interests.
Just as a bag is searched, a camera card for images, deleted images i.e. searches of property.
No ability to get into the US using laptops, CDs, MP3 players, cellular phones, and digital cameras with terrorist communications or any other material thats illegal in the USA.
If any person has sensitive business information, academic materials and did not expect a search?
They should have consider that and used a computer network or other ways of moving time sensitive data around.
Lots of nations will ask a lot of questions. The US can too thanks to powers granted by Congress.
Why do "travelers" now get to hide things in their laptops or on social networks when entering the USA?
Their support for, funding of and membership of different designated terrorist groups might just show on their social media account.
Images, faces, location... why is all that now given US legal cover to be hidden?
Why not give US CBP agents all the powers they need to search any device, ask for accounts, look at any images on entry to the USA?
If a person is using technical countermeasures, like ‘burner’ laptops and mobile devices? Find that out and ask why? Wait for the lie and then deport.
Re 'warrant before conducting any device searches"? That will slow the ability to search and allow lawyers to enter the search process.
If every search has to be slowed for a warrant, fewer people will be search. More interesting people will just slip into the USA.
Re "demand is likely to be mirrored by foreign governments, which will demand passwords from U.S. citizens"
If another nation wants to keep their nation safe, thats their legal system.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
(Stupid touch screen)
All four of us are planning to spend 10 days in Nevada.
I'm coming with real money to spend on frivilous crap because I can.
Why make it difficult?
I'm white, of British and Scottish descent, with no religious affiliation. I dont really expect too many problems, but the idea that it might makes me reconsider this trip.
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
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.
Not going to gamble.
There is a specific event we are going to. Nothing really like it here in Canada.
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.
Why does any despot want any power? It gives him advantage.
Trump doesn't have a great record in the courts. Having to ask a judge for a warrant to snoop on someone is not in his nature.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
But that's simply a deflection and avoiding the subject. Why didn't the Democrats take action when *they* had all 3 branches of government with Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' in play that made the minority (R)'s unable to block/obstruct as with the ACA/Obamacare?
Could it be that the problem is one of a too-powerful government altogether, and not simply a problem with one political party?
Take off the partisan blinders. *Both* sides are corrupt and agree on 90%-plus, especially on abridging civil rights.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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
He's a lumberjack, and he's okay.
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.
Once you're in the US (and while your outside the US), your rights as a human being should be fully respected.
*You're
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
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
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...
America: Have your phone's contents read and your children groped while you have to "step back from the line, Sir"
Canada: Local people volunteer to go to the airport with the sole intention to welcome travellers into the country.
Quite the contrast...
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.
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
(Stupid touch screen)
All four of us are planning to spend 10 days in Nevada.
I'm coming with real money to spend on frivilous crap because I can.
Why make it difficult?
I'm white, of British and Scottish descent, with no religious affiliation. I dont really expect too many problems, but the idea that it might makes me reconsider this trip.
Don't take cash. The cops will steal it.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
He was able to take 3 vacations and golf six times in a month, and nobody thought that was possible. Considering passing and signing legislation is their one fucking job, you'd think they'd be able to fit a single bill outlawing warrantless wiretaps into their busy schedule. But wait, Congress is on recess, meeting with their "constituents" (donors).
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.