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.
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.
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!”
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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