Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Sued Over Phone Searches at US Borders (reuters.com)
The Trump administration has engaged in an unconstitutional practice of searching without a warrant the phones and laptops of Americans who are stopped at the border, a lawsuit filed on Wednesday alleged. From a report: Ten U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident sued the Department of Homeland Security in federal court, saying the searches and prolonged confiscation of their electronic devices violate privacy and free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution. DHS could not be immediately reached for comment. The lawsuit comes as the number of searches of electronic devices has surged in recent years, alarming civil rights advocates.
"An NBC News investigation published in March turned up 25 instances in which American citizens said border agents demanded their phones and passwords at airports and border crossings. Cellphone seizures by border officers are said to have spiked significantly in recent years, at the end of the Obama administration and beginning of the Trump administration. "
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/350449-dhs-sued-over-warrantless-electronic-device-searches-at-border
The Trump administration is basically continuing practices that were commonly done when God-Emperor Obama reigned over us in all His Holy Gloriousness.
Yet again proving that Trump is worse that Hitler and that the Russians did it.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
(Effectively, that is... you can sue them if you get their permission first, but all that actually seems to mean is that they are willing to reach a settlement)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Then there will be no need for searches, we'll all be free as a jaybird!
I'd love for this to succeed, but they'll need to go to the Supreme Court and challenge the disastrous "The Constitution doesn't apply at the border, near airports, within 100 miles of a Starbucks, etc." ruling. No chance in hell.
What does this have to do with Trump Administration, is the Donald searching these phones personally? Is DHS doing something they have never done before solely on orders from Trump? I guess you gotta put 'Trump' in the headline for them clicks
not only are they not immune to lawsuits, they (different parts of government) can also sue each other.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone
Yet another example of why we need bigger government with more power consolidated.
This has been going on for years, and has nothing to do with the current administration" in specific.
Why even mention Trump? what is wrong with just saying that the US is being sued?
All this Trump namedropping in negative stories isn't helping anyone. It only helps to increase the hysteria and does not changes anyone's opinion. The only thing it does is convey is that you are a whiner.
It's time to keep a burner phone, I use roam mobility when in the US. I got an Acer Zest for $79 at costco with a nice 5.5" screen. They can search it all they want!
Border Officers Nearly Double Searches of Electronic Devices, U.S. Says
The policy of searching cellphones and other electronic devices at the border started in the George W. Bush administration with a focus on specific individuals, but the searches have recently [as of 11 April 2017] expanded to include broad ranges of people who do not pose a threat.
not only are they not immune to lawsuits
Err, yes, they are immune to lawsuits.
This has nothing to do with any specific president.
As soon as people started carrying electronic devices across the border, they started having them searched.
The problem isn't that electronic devices are being searched at the border. The problem is this ridiculous notion that the laws that apply everywhere else in the country shouldn't also apply at the borders of the country, And that's something that happened so long ago that I don't know if anyone even remembers who the idiot was who thought that was either a good idea, or consistent with the constitution.
not only are they not immune to lawsuits
Err, yes, they are immune to lawsuits.
That applies to tortious acts and contract matters. The government isn't immune to suits regarding infringement of freedoms, failure to disclose information that it's obligated to disclose, etc. Think of how many ACLU lawsuits there have been, for example.
Bush* started it.
Obama continued the practice.
Ignoring the Constitution at the border started a VERY long time ago.
Lock your phone with software that has two unlock codes, one of which unlocks it and the other of which wipes it down to the bare metal. When they demand the unlock code, give them the latter one. Keep the phone backed up, obviously, so it can be restored.
And that's something that happened so long ago that I don't know if anyone even remembers who the idiot was who thought that was either a good idea, or consistent with the constitution.
That probably because someone argued that had nothing to do with any specific president.
This has nothing to do with any specific president.
See, just like that.
Look if facts and history and reasons aren't important to you that's fine, that's your right. But leave others alone when they want to point them out. Otherwise we start to get all the "but that happened so long ago" bullshit.
Well there's a great use of our tax dollars...
It was started in 1953
Apple made access to and searches of iPhone X easier with FaceID.
Law enforcement can just hold your iPhone X in front of your face and it's unlocked.
Alternative interpretations are not as appealing as one would first think.
Given these three choices, I think limiting the Constitution to U.S. territories is the safest.
SCOTUS already ruled that warrants are not required to search upon entry to the country and for 100 miles inland.
If you don't look directly at the iPhone, it won't unlock. I'm guessing you can look down at your lap for longer than a cop can hold a phone in front of you.
The courts have held that the police have the right to take your fingerprints or picture. They have never said that they can force you to look at something.
The Constitution is the controlling authority of the relationship between the citizens and the federal government.. This means that non-citizens only have rights that we voluntarily give them when they get here (which is more descriptive of what actually happens anyway), and American citizens should enjoy the full protections of their citizenship ANYWHERE in the world (unlike now).
AS far as enforcing their laws elsewhere, they already do.
Full disclosure:
Captcha = confused
Hoo boy let the what abouts spin!
Let's all forget to speak up or fight this, because Obama did it! Or, you know, his administration. Or, you know, following the footsteps of the last admin, which Trump is now also blindly following despite being some "outsider". Gee I wonder why he didn't change any of this?
Don't worry guys who are blaming Obama, Trump won't change it either.
I wonder when the next guy gets elected and continues these politicies you fools will also still be pinning things on that black president.
Or, if he's a Republican, shilling hard to prove to everyone why these aren't such a a bad thing because of copious pearl clutching by the 'personal responsibility' and 'i'm so afraid of terrorists and immigrants i'll do anything' folks.
The government has sovereign immunity to all lawsuits excepting those specifically authorized by congress. Without law that made it possible to sue the government for certain violations there would be no legal way to sue the federal government. Those lists of potential areas to sue are areas where congress allowed lawsuits in prior times.
Let me get this straight; you feel that we shouldn't search for contraband as materials enter our country provided the potential smuggler is a US citizen? Did I just read you incorrectly? What exactly are you saying here?
"...In 1952, the government authorized the United States Border Patrol (initially established in 1924) to patrol “all territory within 25 miles of a land border” and board and search vehicles for illegal aliens, according to the website of its successor agency, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Immigration officers—then and now—receive their authority from Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, section 287 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations authorizes immigration officers to search and interrogate, without warrant, any person suspected of being in the United States illegally within a “reasonable distance” of any external boundary of the United States. In 1953, the Department of Justice amended section 287.1 of 8 CFR to define “reasonable distance” as 100 miles, a distance the American Civil Liberties Union insinuates was arbitrarily determined...."
You can determine what party was in power in 1952/53.
The way that the U.S. defines borders, almost the entire country is constitution-free. Start with 100 miles from any border and add a functional equivalent border around international airports. That covers roughly 2/3rds of the population of the U.S. including most major cities, all of Michigan, Florida, and several north-eastern states.
Not that the constitution is followed in the U.S. anyway. Practically every single amendment is violated by the government.
As soon as people started carrying electronic devices across the border, they started having them searched.
Nobody has ever demanded the password to any computer, mobile phone, PDA, or other device that I have carried across the U.S. border, in either direction, ever. So your statement is patently false.
Breakfast served all day!
Obama was doing more governing than either W did (remember Donald Rumsfeld sending troops to Iraq without adequate armor) or Trump is doing. So he does get the credit when government goes in the right direction, but because one president can't change how the US all of how government functions even in two terms (without breaking a bunch of shit) he does not deserve to be blamed for things that happen due to inertia.
The government isn't immune to suits regarding infringement of freedoms, failure to disclose information that it's obligated to disclose, etc. Think of how many ACLU lawsuits there have been, for example.
But in many cases the ACLU fights those cases on defense. If the government charges me with "unlawful speech," for example, there's nothing stopping me from retaining ACLU lawyers as part of my legal team. Or if I'm convicted, the ACLU can step in and offer to help with my appeal, in the interest of bringing the judgment to a court with sufficient standing to create precedent. But neither of those things is exactly the same as "suing the government."
In the case where information is not disclosed, I think far more often the procedure is not to try to sue, but first to demand that the agency that possesses that information disclose it; then demand that whichever agency has regulatory authority over the first agency step in and do something about it; and then make sure the New York Times knows all about it; and then call a couple Senators and Representatives about it; etc.
And then in some cases the government just agrees to be sued because a judgment in the government's favor would establish precedent and get the ACLU out of its face. And sometimes the government loses those.
Breakfast served all day!
... Trump does stupid shit?
Trump & Billy Bush lewd conversation about women Donald Trump On Tape: I Grab Women "By The Pussy” - YouTube
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Yeah, but if you put TRUMP in the headline as the one to blame, you get attention and put on the front page...
So it was "click bait" ... right? I think that is the right word for it.
Since when did /. editors resort to MSM publishing tactics in an effort to "improve their product"? No wait a minute, that's sarcasm, right?
What contraband are you going to find on a smartphone or laptop? What, all the pedophiles smuggling hard drives full of kiddie porn through the airport because they haven't heard of the internet?
Look at the bright side: At least they have to wait with smashing your face until after they have unlocked your phone.
Your anecdotal experience as one individual who has not been selected for search proves nothing. Not when there is a large and ever growing list of citizens who are being subjected to searches of their electronic devices.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
What exactly are you saying here?
...that the fourth amendment protects against search and seizure without a court-issued warrant. Full stop.
'[The fourth amendment] requires governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.'
Seems fair well cut and dry there. The border searches of private personal devices are unconstitutional.
I think you misread, the EXCEPTIONS are tortuous acts and contracts.
The policy of boarder search exemptions to the 4th amendment goes back to 1953 when the Justice Department implemented it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed for this. And since SCOTUS gets to decide what is and isn't "Constitutional", this lawsuit isn't going anywhere.
Just another day in Paradise
Are you THAT incompetent at reading?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ..."
Stop selectively quoting
Thanks to Scalia, it is REASONABLE if a cop THINKS it might be reasonable.
I don't doubt that people are having their electronic devices searched. The assertion was that warrantless searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border has been a given ever since electronic devices were invented, and that's ridiculous. The precedent for this kind of government overreach is quite new. Plenty of people have been detained at the U.S. border for one reason or another without turning over all their passwords. This is a new thing, and to claim it isn't is basically to be complicit with totalitarianism in America.
Breakfast served all day!