Slashdot Mirror
Woman Sues US Border Agents Over Seized iPhone (bbc.com)
An American woman who had her phone seized by border agents as she returned home to the United States is suing the country's border protection agency. Bob the Super Hamste shares a report: Rejhane Lazoja was stopped at Newark airport, New Jersey, after returning from a trip to Switzerland in February. Her iPhone was seized by agents after she refused to unlock it for them. The lawsuit alleges that border agents took a copy of the data on her smartphone and failed to say whether it had been deleted. According to legal documents, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) kept the phone for more than 120 days before returning it to Ms Lazoja, who is a Muslim woman and wears a hijab. [...] "Neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant [to search the phone]. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms Lazoja's property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment," the filing says.
and before you get past them you have not crossed the border, so you have no rights, including property rights. The border guards are free to steal from you as they see fit.
This is America, not a utopia, geez
We have rules for this sort of thing, and we should be following them. And if there is a reason for this to happen we should change the rules, but it seems like people with authority being turds.
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
probably should wipe phone before travel as a privacy measure. delete pics and texts... probably better to use a travel phone with nothing on it.
its retarded... but we live in retarded times.
except...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The land of the free!
(Some restrictions apply. See insert for details.)
... it's politics time, because it's an iPhone?
"You're just giving me extra scrutiny because I call myself Scarface and keep talking about offers you can't refuse! As though that makes me dangerous! You bigot!"
Why yes, yes I am ...
and before you get past them you have not crossed the border, so you have no rights, including property rights. The border guards are free to steal from you as they see fit.
This is America, not a utopia, geez
At least the pirates dress in uniforms and receive a salary. It simply wouldn't do to have just anyone robbing people of their belongings.
Yeah like America, where there have been Muslims since inception. WHAT A SHITHOLE, it's full of Republican traitors trying to jack eachother off with tax breaks for people who don't need 'em. Crazy world!
Good points, stay strong, drink Brawndo.
So the question boils down to this. Can Border Agents search you as you enter the USA or not? Does that include your phone and other personal effects?
On one hand, we have the 4th amendment which prohibits warrantless searches without legal review. On the other hand, we have the clear need to secure the border, which requires some level of inspection of persons and the things they are carrying.
The whole argument about the content that might or might not have been on the phone is moot regardless of her religious views. If the data from the phone has been deleted or not is also moot. I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled.
My guess is the courts will hold it was legal to inspect the phone, demanding she unlock it and confiscate it when she refused. But that begs the question about it this is really how we want to do things.... I'm not so sure.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
CBP does these seizures under the legal rationale that when you are entering the U.S., you are initially outside U.S. soil, and thus Constitutional protections do not apply. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that U.S. law does not apply outside U.S. soil (nor should you want it to - that would give the CIA free reign to enforce U.S. law in other countries). That's the whole reason Bush put a prison in Guantanamo Bay. Because while it's a U.S. base, it's not on U.S. soil. It's on Cuban soil. And by holding prisoners there, he hoped to deny them protections provided by the U.S. Constitution (which the Supreme Court has ruled applies even to illegal aliens if they're on U.S. soil).
Unless/until the Supreme Court rules that U.S. law applies to people at U.S. border checkpoints but have not yet been admitted to the U.S., this stuff will continue. Business travelers ferrying sensitive information in/out of the U.S. that they wish to keep out of the hands of the government typically wipe their devices clean. Then once they're out of the U.S., connect to their company's network via a VPN and restore backups of their devices. Repeat the process in reverse when entering the U.S. Connect to to their company via VPN, create a backup of their devices, then wipe their devices before going through customs. Restore from the backup once they're in the U.S. Any smart terrorist is going to use the same procedure, so I don't know what's really gained by all these searches and seizures. I guess they keep the dumb terrorists in check, but at the cost of inconveniencing hundreds of millions of travelers and leaving them feeling their privacy has been violated.
Jesus broke a bunch of rules and was punished. He deserved to die according to the rules that existed at the time.
This woman is not a victim any more than any other American is every day. She was inconvenienced by border security. This is not a political issue. It's been happening since before Trump. We had 8 years for Obama to fix this, he didn't.
Stop playing a victim. Whites, blacks, browns, everyone is subject to this rule. She didn't do as requested, the confiscated her phone. It's within their rights as border security agents. You have a right to say no, but don't be surprised when someone takes away your toy because you didn't abide by their requests.
the brainwashing apple does to its customers.. Giving them a false sense of security and of being above the law.
> who is a Muslim woman and wears a hijab. [...] "Neither was there probable cause
The probable cause is in the first part: she was a muslim and wears a hijab. They should have stripsearched her too and then refused her entry.
As I recall hearing a few years ago, border agents do not need cause. They can search whom ever they want. Americans or not. Cause or not. It's called the border search exception or doctrine.
They often seize electronic goods for their own use and there is little to no recourse for the unwashed masses.
Your government is literally out of control. Nothing matters anymore. Your politicians can say and do literally anything and it doesn't matter to Americans. Look at all the people who still rally behind Trump. The same hypocritical, inbred motherfuckers who shouted red faced that Clinton must be impeached because he fucked an intern. This dude pays off porn stars, works with the Russians to win the election and suddenly, it's all OK.
Likely if you supported Clinton impeachment and are OK with Trump, you are a piece of shit.
Maybe you should join the border patrol?
The Supreme Court has already ruled on cases EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE and upheld border searches and seizures as constitutional.
These people are beating a dead horse. The search was legal. The seizure was legal. End of story.
I wonder how many pages of restriction I must read to be in the land of the free?
Whether this was done deliberately to punish her with the abuse of process, or simply another manifestation of government ineptitude, does not matter. The lesson here is, pigs will be pigs — and I don't use the term to refer to just law enforcement, but to all government employees.
Don't kid yourself, it will not be any better in the government-run hospitals, that certain political movements keep demanding. The second a service-provider is deprived of a legitimate interest in getting paid by the service-buyer, the quality of the service goes right into that deep malodorous cavity under an outhouse — ask any ex-Soviet for more examples.
That's not actually relevant. They'd do it to anyone making a principled stand.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There is a Constitution free zone that exists within 100 miles of the US border.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
She's not suing CBP. That's pretty stupid since case law says she'd lose under all sorts of "protecting America" style laws.
She's filed a Rule 41(g) Motion instead, or "Motion to Return Property".
In other words, she's basically seeking to have CBP tu "return" all the data they collected from her phone - to not only destroy the images that were created, but any portions thereof, plus to have 3rd parties who many have accessed said image for any reason to again delete that data they may have collected.
Even more, she wants information on what happened to the data, including information on who it may have been provided to for what purposes and such (presumably also to verify that they too have destroyed/returned the data)/
If anything, it's probably a more unique case to go through the courts with and one where she may succeed - it wasn't necessarily wrong to collect the data, but now she's ordering its return and justification for keeping that data. And by "return", legally it means "full deletion" (remember the Waymo vs. Uber? Waymo wanted the "return" of the data which really meant the data was given back and destroyed).
More Details: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
..enjoy our new hotness in law enforcement: 'TWB' (aka 'Travelling While Brown/Black/not White).
Get back to molesting people, TSA goon.
Requiem for the American Dream
"Neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant [to search the phone]"
The probable cause was that you where outside of the United States. Customs has never ever been required to have a warrant. This is how it has been since the country was founded. You are not in the United States until you clear customs. If you have a locked briefcase, you must open it when the customs official asks. Your computer or cell phone are the modern equivalents to a briefcase.
Once cleared by customs, local state, and federal law enforcement must have a warrant as you are now in the United States.
Really damn simple. Really.
The CBP guys just wanted to see her hair, but had to get a full search protocol which includes taking her cellphone.
Clearly.
They wouldn't want to unduly harass a US citizen returning from Zurich, would they?
It isn't like she would hide drugs inside the phone or was going to use it as a weapon to beat other people. She could just visit any hardware store or Walmart to get something better for $9.
I can't see any reason for searching the content of electronic devices at a border. None. It is purely for harassment when the govt simply cannot get a warrant because there isn't **any** probable cause.
She wasn't just wearing non-standard conforming head garb but also a phone advertised with "Think Different!". Parading that amount of non-conformity into the Land of the Free makes one wonder whether she won her citizenship in a lottery or didn't bother reading between the lines on her naturalization form.
1) Encrypt your notebook / computers with something like VeraCrypt and ALWAYS make a hidden partition.
2) Make sure to leave the visible OS squeaky clean and sanitized.
3) Backup your phone to the hidden partition.
4) Wipe your phone.
5) Keep your phone unlocked and open.
6) Gladly pass it over for cloning as it will be empty.
7) IF they ask to search your notebook, don't worry you have a hidden encrypted partition.
8) Once they let you pass, restore your phone.
9) Laugh about how this will work every single time
This is how we make America great again! She shouldn't provoke those border agents by wearing a hijab.
Probable cause. That's all there is to it.
When I came back through border security a few months ago 3 of the agents were women wearing those head scarves. Notice this case is about the cell phone but there's a paragraph devoted to how her religious beliefs prevent her from removing the scarf of which there is exactly zero mention of the agents asking her to do.
I disagree. It was wrong to collect the data. An American should not be treated like a criminal when they come back home.
I see you have forgotten the constitution-free zone within 100 miles of the border and around any international airport...
There are no 4th amendment rights at the border , even for US citizens, she is going to lose this case.
As someone in San Diego, had I not read about such laws I would never even realize such things were possible. I've never seen border patrol pull anyone over. Ever. Of course, I'm not down by the border itself but in the actual city of San Diego and east of it.
The only time a normal citizen ever crosses the border is either at the airport, going to Mexico, or traveling north on Interstate 15 from San Diego where you hit a checkpoint that's usually not open. There's another checkpoint heading east on Interstate 8 at the state crossing into Arizona as well.
So generally speaking, outside of an airport, you don't run into this stuff.
It doesn't mean it isn't important, it just isn't in our face or every day lives.
We get it traveling back from Canada at the border there too...
Generally speaking, you don't run into this stuff if you're white. If you're brown or wearing a hjijab, you have to be prepared anywhere.
It got pretty bad several years back (http://www2.kuow.org/program.php?id=24487), then the ACLU got them to agree at least on paper to at least act like they were taking the Constitution into account. But never fear, there are federal agents near you, muscling in on anyone who seems like they might have transgressed a rule. They have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border, so anywhere in San Diego is near enough to the coast to be subject to problems with CBP, if you fit their profile.
Sure it does. The 9th and 14th amendments
The 9th amendment simply states that despite the Constitution enumerating rights, it should not be assumed that any rights not listed don't exist. Conversely, it does not state that everything not prohibited by the Constitution is a right.
The 14th amendment has 5 sections. The first section defines citizen. The second section talks about how to apportion the members of the House of Representatives based on state populations (excluding Indians who don't pay tax) and prohibits felons from voting for federal offices. Section 3 states that people who have taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and break that oath are not eligible for Senator, Representative, Vice President, or President unless 2/3 of Congress votes to override in that specific case. Section 4 deals with public debt. Section 5 authorizes Congress to enforce this amendment. Where in the 14th amendment does it give rights for a woman to induce an abortion?
but...but...but...SPACE FORCE!
Invasive plant and animal species are one thing. Narcotics can affect people, destroy families, and make the affected unproductive. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to medicinal cannabis. In some cases, a search is required to catch real criminals. On "U.S. soil", that would require a court-approved warrant.
Want privacy don't bring data to border control. Wipe your phone and restore when in safer place.
The first section defines citizen.
The first section also has a due process clause, and people who cite "the 14th Amendment" usually refer to it in the context that any freedom guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be removed by a state. I'm guessing the GP's claim is that an abortion is an inherent right, and so by the 14th Amendment, it cannot be outright banned by states.
Nor any other person entering the United States. But since border searches of electronics began in order to fish for data, the United States has been a non-free country for a very long time.
Looking like a Ninja is always suspicious to me !!!
That's a rather worrisome obsession you have going on there.
Donald Trump's administration has been the biggest humanitarian crisis on recorded history!
What you need is a big black dick up your ass.
You live in Raleigh, so you won't have any trouble finding what you need.
Allow multiple unlock passwords / patterns. Each one would do something different. Of course there's still the one to unlock the phone. The others would do one of the following:
* Unlock the phone and start in a sandboxed environment that looked like the real one but contained fake user data. Maybe show initial screen like "Congratulations on the purchase of your new XXXX phone! Let's get started personalizing it!!"
* Display a message like "Internal battery short detected. This device is being halted to prevent possible damage. Please contact vendor." then shutdown.
* Display a message like "CPU error CORE-14901. HALT" then shutdown
* Display a sequence that looks like a full factory wipe and restart
Any of the error + halt messages would become "sticky". Subsequent power-on attempts would immediately show the same error and power off. There would need to be a way to interrupt this and enter an "escape" password/pattern that could return the phone to normal operation.
The goal being to convince the party demanding the unlock code that there's nothing to see here, move along, move along.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Keep everything on the MicroSD card, good luck finding that sealed up in the bar of soap
Really? I didn't see that line. Even more I'm pretty sure the first amendments to the constitution actually were restrictions on what the US government could do to any person. Think about it. If you start saying your limits of what the government can aren't universal then the government can slowly chip away at them and pretty soon you might find the US constitution only applying to some special group like land owning white men. I'm sure no one intended that.
I disagree. It was wrong to collect the data. An American should not be treated like a criminal when they come back home.
She's not an American. Muslims are here for one thing, to take over. Look it up. That's what they do. At a certain point, they'll just kill you. They've taken over a lot of nations this way. She's part of the invasion.
I don't get why profiling is bad. Israel does it and not one of their airplanes has ever been hijacked since they implemented profiling.
Israel profiling is beyond skin-based racism however: It has suspect mannerisms listed in its profiling, their clothing, a good dozen innocuous but important "tells" that let them pull out all the potential threats. So far.
Sorry if that's not politically approvable to your views, but it works. American should copy a policy from a system that has been working, not cling to a policy from the wild-west frontier-justice days.