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."

32 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 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.
    2. 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.

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

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

    4. Re: lack of foresight by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, but they did have private documents.

      But its not the same. In those days, when you travelled and crossed borders you had to more or less consciously give some attention to the documents you brought with you. Reams of paper get pretty heavy; and so it wasn't customary to have every document, photo, and piece of correspondence, you ever produced or received *on your person*.

      Now you cross the border... and your phone or laptop; especially if its also linked to additional cloud storage accounts and social media etc... it literally has the potential to be a every document, photo, and piece of correspondence you have ever received; and we don't give it a 2nd thought ... we need our phones to make a few calls or receive emails and look at maps while travelling, and we don't think about just how much data we're carrying around with us until some belligerent TSA goon is demanding we hand over our phone and laptop passwords.

      We're not deliberately carrying all our photos and email history and bank records and tax documents through customs because we want to transport them to another country... its just incidental to how we use the devices.

    5. Re:lack of foresight by Tesen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could tie in with that part mentioning "We the people" found in the Declaration of Independence. Which would eliminate non-citizens from protection (possibly).

      Except if you look at the full Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      Or to paraphrase: We the representatives of the people of the sovereign states hereby define the owners manual for our country.

      There have been many people that argued the preamble implies citizen only, but that is contrary to the the fact they enumerated citizen only restrictions elsewhere in the document, in addition, other restrictions upon the Federal Government and the rights of granted to the people via the bill of rights, seems to imply where important distinctions are made.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:lack of foresight by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      Make all the rationalizations that you want, SCOTUS has already decided. This is not a matter of opinion or rightness, but fact. Non-citizens do not have constitutional rights. They do have human rights and any rights granted by treaty or specific laws, but constitutional rights are only guaranteed for citizens.

      Fact: the consitution, in literal and clear words, say A.
      Fact: a branch of the government, because it's more convenient for them, says B.

      I demand rights I have, not rights a government wants me to have. That I cannot exercise those rights at present is why I'm complaining. And I'm among people who can, if we got off our asses, fight back: while we can't fight the way the congresscritters prefer, by the Golden Rule, as we don't have the gold, we can research ways and educate people how to get your data unmolested in face of unlawful searches and forced password exposure.

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

      By "native American", do you mean the first, second or third wave of pre-Eric-the-Red immigration?

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

      The Constitution isn't perfect. Don't try to interpret it as if it was. Better to look at the intent, rather than make technical arguments over the exact wording.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  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.
    1. Re:And for everyone else...? by ASDFnz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      while completely ignoring any intrusion/violation of the rights of visitors.

      Speaking as someone from another country (New Zealand) who has visited the US on several occasions (mostly social) I can tell you it has certainly become an issue.

      Recently I was planning to attend an event in Las Vegas (hobby related). My first thought was to the invasive border security that is already in place but I though why not and decided to go anyway.

      Others decided differently, in the end the event in Las Vegas was canceled because of the invasive border protection and we all went to Australia instead.

    2. Re:And for everyone else...? by ASDFnz · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a New Zealander I hold with our national view that Australia is full of cunts :P .

  3. Senator Wyden: by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative
    I certainly appreciate the sentiment, and I hope your endeavor is successful. Far too many freedoms are forfeited at the border, and at Customs during TSA "interviews".

    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

    1. Re:Senator Wyden: by Kreegalor · · Score: 2

      You would think it would. But they play these games at the border where x amount of distance (something 500 or 1000 feet) on either side of the border is "a no man's land" and same thing at international arrival areas at airports. Its not US territory, nor is it Canadian or Mexican territory for the land borders and as such claim your constitutional rights aren't in effect there. This is why they can ask all the questions they want, search your car, detain you and all that other good stuff and not "violate" the Constitution. Hell, there is some 100 mile rule they can operate in from any of the borders where they can intercept and detain you for whatever border related issue they can come up with. Ideally, if you are an American Citizen and are coming back back to the US across one of these borders your Constitutional rights should immediately be in effect when dealing with US Customs and Border Patrol. But, the cowards of the country would rather give up their Constitutional rights for security theater.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Senator Wyden: by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Would *you* risk getting detained for an indefinite period, however illegally, just because you want to assert that your constitutional rights are being violated? Of course I can appreciate the sentiment behind what you are saying, but people are bending over and taking this kind of crap at the borders not because they particularly *want* any appearance of increased security, but because they just want to fucking go home, and cooperating fully with the border agents, even the ones who might abuse their position, and even if your rights are being violated, is generally expected to be the most expedient path to that end.

    4. Re:Senator Wyden: by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Send him snail mail or a phone call.

      Come on now. He's a member of the Senate, the most exclusive club in the country. You don't think he reads Slashdot?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Senator Wyden: by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      What about citizens of other nations? Do they actually have fewer rights in the USA? Our own constitution and laws do grant some rights exclusively to citizens, but a lot of other laws, especially the ones having to do with search and seizure, arrest and subsequent processing, warrants, and other basic rights, apply equally to everyone in the country. And our country includes the immigration officers' desks.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Senator Wyden: by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Very few US laws are based on citizenship, most laws including constitutional rights apply to everybody who is here.
      The colloquial subject language simply focuses incorrectly on citizenship.

    7. Re:Senator Wyden: by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always found the whole "no mans land" thing amusing in a twisted way since the customs agents claim to have legal authority to ignore the Constitution and yet it is the Constitution that grants them any authority in the first place.

      If the Constitution/Bill of Rights does not apply and they have no authority to do anything. But If they claim that they have any authority then the Constitutional/Bill of Rights protections apply. And as another poster pointed out the Constitution doesn't have a clause "These Rights only apply to American Citizens".

  4. has it come to this by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:has it come to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do you prove that a border agent or office has abused their authority? I have personally seen CBP agents going through a person's phone and their private photos. They were sitting in the booth going through them while I waited but they did not realize that I can see what they are doing through the reflection in the glass on the booth.

      They have also attempted to open my devices when I am stopped for a random check. I get the alerts in my e-mails and on my watch.

      The point is with no oversight or prerequisites to make border guards follow, with required outcome, then abuse will be rampant. The guards see a good looking male or female and force them to unlock the phone just to gain access to their most private moments. These are done behind closed doors and can be copied without permission and are nothing more than abuse of power.

  5. 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.
  6. 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!”
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. 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.
  9. Re:As a Canadian... by arth1 · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. As soon as you're invited to visit, I agree (naked by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  11. Supreme court disagree by aepervius · · Score: 2

    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
  12. 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