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.
There really was no reason to even mention Trump in this story, perhaps other than to say that he hasn't stopped the practice. By doing so, the writers have derailed the conversation from the start. It's destined to turn into a political shit-flinging contest now.
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
Gonna go with ICE and DHS being under the Executive branch of the government, of which Trump is the titular head?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
That's probably why they filed in Massachusetts, which is part of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If they win in the trial and appellate courts, there will then be a split of authority between the First Circuit and the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which have held the search of electronic devices at the border to be constitutional (subject to minor constraints). The odds then go up considerably that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.
He's not saying it's not allowed, he's saying it's counterproductive to gratuitously invoke it (just as it was with Obama). Besides, with all the stupid shit Trump actually does, why dilute it with this inappropriate use?
Dammit, Jim. I'm a troll not a rational commenter.
You are partially right. This little exception clause in the law saw done by the Bush (senior I believe) administration and continued by every president since him, so no one is innocent. What IS noteworthy is that it was actually more in the first 6 months of this year than in the combined years of the other previous presidents, so the Trump administration is responsible for using this privilege to an excessive extent.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
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.
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.
Slashdot did this during the Bush Administration too.
If the federal government was doing it and it was bad - it was "The Bush Administration" - if it was doing something good - it was the executive organization that did it (justice department, FBI, EPA, etc)
As soon as the Obama Administration came in the script was flipped - if it was bad it was the exective organization and if it was good then it was Obama himself doing it.
As they should be. If it's the law or standard practice, it should be enforced so that it shines light on it and if negative, is changed through legislation, eventually stopping this discretionary enforcement that's been going on as the executive branch changes parties.
Bush didn't need any help. It was overwhelming passed by Congress, all he had to do was ask for it and sign it.
These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn...
Very few of the Democrats in the Senate learned their lesson, and so voted to reauthorize it by close to the same numbers in 2006, and Obama signed off on at least one more renewal (I've lost track).
The list of two-time Yeas includes Hillary Cllnton, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Rockefeller, Sarbane, both Nelsons, Diane Feinstein, Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, ...
The House was a tad better as far as Dems voting Nay, it passed the House 357-66 in 2001 and 280-138 in 2006.
The biggest spike? Let's see, a quick Google shows it spiked from 2560 in October 2016 to...2595 in March 2017.
Note that both of those numbers are about triple the number for October 2015.
A few more quick Googles, and I find that, while the problem has gotten a lot more media attention since Trump became President, the problem started back after 9/11, and has continued a steady rise during both the last two Administrations, with essentially no change since Trump got the job (no change, in this case, means the trends have pretty much continued, almost like it was being done by the bureaucracy, rather than the policymakers)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Border checkpoints within the actual border or international airports within the borders aren't "technically still outside the country". They're absolutely within the country. Could you imagine a group of scary-looking Muslims holding meetings in the "not in the US, yet" zone of LAX and the US letting it happen?
They're only "technically still outside the country" because they want to illegally fuck your rights.
You listed two choices, then mentioned three choices. Did you change your mind and remove the obvious and correct choice of the Constitution delineating the powers of the federal government (regardless of where it is acting or upon whom it is acting) while guaranteeing all other rights to the states and the people?
The Constitution applies within US borders, always. The Constitution applies to US citizens, always. If it is at odds with the law where a US citizen is, then treaties come into play as they are the only laws that are ranked as highly as the Constitution. The Constitution applies to what the federal government does, always and everywhere.
"sense of discretion"?
Does that mean the searches are ok and don't deserve notice as long as the President, who has no possible way to oversee the choices of who gets searched, uses discretion?
I personally believe that DHS should search through every single phone that comes through the border, with agents mocking all the selfies an vacation pics, while rubbing themselves when there are pics of hot chics. Maybe then, Americans would finally wake up to how unprofessional, un-Constitutional, and utterly disgusting warrantless searches are.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba