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.
That's actually company policy where I work. When traveling to the US, we keep our normal phones at home and we get a sort of burner phone from our company to take on the trip. It's basically empty except for a few emergency phone contact numbers.
I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.
You're missing one critical element -- and so is the damn story -- whether or not she is a U.S. citizen. The protections of the Constitution *do* apply to U.S. citizens even when outside the country, when applied to actions of the U.S. government. Gitmo's logic only works because the prisoners are "enemy combatants" and not U.S. citizens.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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...