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.
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.)
What malarky is this? Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt. It says so right there, and there are no clauses based on locality.
If a foreign government seeks to search toy in their country, that is between you, them, and maybe the State Dept.
But, our rights are our rights and our government can not breach them, just because we are somewhere abroad.
But the AC is actually not wrong. This has been going on for well over a decade, and I'm pretty certain it has been fought before in court and the court upheld it. However, I also seem to recall reading very recently that a law was either proposed or actually passed not long ago that would prevent this.
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
The constitutionality of it has not actually been upheld. All that is upheld is you have *less* rights to the right of privacy at the border.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
courts have ruled you do have rights, its just that you have less of a right to privacy.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt.
The border agencies have decided with agreement from some judges that at the border a thorough search is reasonable, and for some reason: including any data stored on any of your electronic devices, or cloud/social media accounts.
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.
"Unreasonable" is a giant loophole, however, you can march a brigade of goons through it... See Border Search Exception...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nope, the border extends 100 miles in land. Airports count as "the border."
Every 100 mile radius around every airport is a constitution free zone.
Don't play ninja dress up at the airport and they probably won't mess with you.
Perhaps you hadn't heard, but the people that Americans choose as their lords and masters believe that "the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper". (Google it. One of the head numpties voiced the sentiment in public a decade or so back.)
The powers-that-be have created a constitution-free zone that proves the piece-of-paper statement within 100 miles of the US border. ACLU
"Land of the free." Heh. It's all part of the brainwashing.
I wonder how many pages of restriction I must read to be in the land of the free?
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Try to go through TSA bearing and keeping Arms. Whenever allow exceptions to made illegally against one right you start to lose all your rights.
That would seem to be incorrect: Border Search Exception.
As long as you are within 100 miles of the US border the 4th amendment does not apply.
As soon as she refused to unlock the phone for them: the border agents likely decided to detain her and put her in handcuffs.
Kind of hard to call the police and do anything, when the border police already have you in their custody.
Sounds like its still up for legal debate according to the very article you linked. Last sentence of the 'electronic materials' section reads:
"In May of 2018, in U.S. v. Kolsuz, the Fourth Circuit court of appeals has held that it is unconstitutional for US border officials to subject visitors' devices to forensic searches without individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.[20]"
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...
The constitution has no such exception. The failure of the courts to enforce the bill of rights doesn't change what it says. This woman's phone was stolen.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
However. She landed at an Airport, located within the border. The Newark Airport is well within the border of the United States, just because you aren't allowed to go past a certain point in the airport does not mean you haven't actually crossed the boreder.
but she's not AT a border, she's at an airport well within the border.
Umm, may I have my iPhone back so that I might call the police?
Requiem for the American Dream
Why do we try so hard to try to justify being cruel to other people?
People spend years digging in books from recent to thousands of years to come up with a justification to be cruel to that person who is different.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No one 'has' authority. The behaviour of others towards you demonstrates their belief that you have authority.
Any apparent authority descends from illegitimate power-grabs.
Requiem for the American Dream
Get back to molesting people, TSA goon.
Requiem for the American Dream
If you didn't support Clinton's impeachment and support Trumps, you are a piece of shit.
Clinton's impeachment was over an affair he had, and was a political witch hunt. A Trump impeachment would be over many campaign finance law violations and (possibly) election law violations.
The latter impeachment would be far more justified than the former.
he, NO, your quote is not even correct.
That 4th says...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 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 to be seized."
Let me break this down. This amendment says the word "unreasonable" but that word is not saying that anything the "government deems" as reasonable is now fair game. The amendment is specifically stating that any "search or seizure" that is NOT accompanied by a WARRANT, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, is what the meaning of unreasonable is in the context of the 4th amendment.
The US government maintains the right to search you and everything you are bringing into the country at a border crossing. I don't think this has been the subject of too much dispute in the past. What is up for debate here is whether that right to search extends to information present on an electronic device that you possess, rather than just searching the physical confines of that device. And is it only a US citizen entering the US that might have a right to privacy in the information that a device they possess contains, or would non-US citizens have privacy rights as well?
Even Star had more restrictions and limited scope than Muller.
Are you seriously trying to claim that an investigation over a failed land deal in Arkansas that ended up charging over a blowjob in the White House decades later was restricted in scope?
The second a service-provider is deprived of a legitimate interest in getting paid by the service-buyer
Do you realize we already have this situation in the US?
You are not the one paying the hospital. Your health insurance is. And their interests are not at all aligned with yours.
I know, and this is bad. But, at least, there are several of those to choose from, and they are still interested in my (or my employer's) money.
Switching to the "single payer" — a dog-whistle for "government run" — would make it even worse.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As long as the searcher is part of Customs and/or Immigration. This doesn't apply to your local law enforcement.
Untrue, the constitution still applies in this case. It would even apply within the so-called 100 mile "border zone", it applies in military bases that are overseas, it applies to US protectorates, and so forth. If this were indeed within areas (outside the 200 mile national waters region) it would be considered piracy and many treaties would apply there that the US would be obligated to respect.
It was about more than that but maybe you just read the first sentence of the investigation.
And is this better? Why is a Russian collusion investigation leading to charges of an affair with a pornstar? Or do you see campaign fiance charges that much more serious than perjury?
Which means that there is less expectation of privacy, rules are less restrictive regarding warrants, and so forth. However it does not mean it is a free-for-all. The border patrol MAY NOT stop any random car and search the trunk sieze the contents in order to fund their operations. Just because the first amendment protections are weakened does not mean they no longer exist and it does not mean that the fourth amendment no longer applies.
Yes, it is true that the border patrol routinely ignores this.
In this case, the border patrol would have to show that there was a reasonable cause to sieze the phone and not return it, which is supported by the Wikipedia link you included.
You are both right and wrong. If the US decides to ignore its own laws and legal foundations and instead act however the hell it wants. However should this case go before a judge and it is determined that this violated the defendants constitutional rights, the government may feel compelled to comply with the courts or else admit to the world that it is a failed state run by warlords.
In other words, the persons in power may ignore the constitution all they want in an attempt to render it irrelevant, however they would have to deal with the consequences. It seems highly unlikely in any case that all branches of the government would agree to this.
But the courts have put some limits on it. It said that in the border zones that there is less protection against searches, but it did not say that there is zero protection. The border agencies still have to show a reasonable cause for searching, and in this case goes through they'd have to show to the courts why there was a reasonable cause to hold on to the mobile phone for 120 days.
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
In other words, the persons in power may ignore the constitution all they want in an attempt to render it irrelevant, however they would have to deal with the consequences.
You speak as if you don't read/listen to the news - that this is a hypothetical.
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.
Not sure what you are getting at, but the Supreme Court has held on many occasions that the government has a "compelling interest" in keeping people safe which outweighs a "minor inconvenience" to the people. Yes, they actually say this as if ensuring convenience is the reason we have a constitution. This is the justification for allowing such things as immigration checkpoints well inside the border, DUI checkpoints, safety (i.e. license and insurance) checkpoints, etc...
I disagree. It was wrong to collect the data. An American should not be treated like a criminal when they come back home.
but she's not AT a border, she's at an airport well within the border.
An international airport (i.e. one at which there is Customs service) is considered "the border". If you are within 100 miles of "the border", you're at the border and have very few rights.
Also note that since there are so many airports that can be considered "international", that there are very few places anywhere within the United States where you don't happen to be "at the border".
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.
The Supreme Court has never said that the border control can do whatever they want. The courts said that the fourth amendment still applies at the border but that what is "reasonable" for searches is necessarily expanded at the border. So yes, they can have simple searches of people without giving a reason or a warrant, however in the case of an anal search the court held that probable cause was needed based upon reasonable suspicion. As for taking a cell phone and not returning it for 120 days, I would think that this amounts to unreasonable search and seizure. Or at the very least there's certainly enough doubt that the border control can exert this much power or that the constitution has deteriorated that much that the lawsuit should be allowed to go to court. This is more than a pat-down or opening of bags. Refusing to unlock a phone does not give probable cause that a crime is being committed.
The Metallica option was removed when Lars chose to belittle the grabasses stealing their music.
The Bill Of Rights applies to all people in the US. Citizenship is not a requirement. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill Of Rights.
You are completely wrong. The power of the CBP comes from the US Constitution and laws. So if it is lawless territory they have no power at all to seize your property.
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?
Far more so than statist bootlickers, we do. Beyond searches for contraband or weapons, the state and its apologists can fuck right off unless they get a warrant.
but...but...but...SPACE FORCE!
The failure of the courts to enforce the bill of rights doesn't change what it says.
Nope it doesn't change what it says, it simply invalidates it wholesale like an unenforceable contract.
Are you american?
if so you should be aware of the 100 mile excluson zone as well : https://www.aclu.org/other/con...
So you not only dont have "rights" AT the border, but you have limited rights for 100 miles into the country as well.
So you're saying people on medicare and medicaid go to special medicare hospitals run by the government?
You are correct; however, before you have crossed the border you are not IN the US and thus 4th Amendment rights do not apply to foreigners.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yeah , like the healthcare systems in every single other advanced economy that provide better outcomes at lower cost than yours does.
Just like them.
Want privacy don't bring data to border control. Wipe your phone and restore when in safer place.
4th amendment does not apply at the border, dipshit. Neither does any other amendment.
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.
Believing in invisible pink unicorns and having terrible fashion sense shouldn't bar someone from returning home.
Nobody's being charged for having an affair. They're being charged (and pleading guilty to) violating election laws (illegal campaign contributions) and not paying their taxes, for example. It's common for investigations to pursue illegal activities discovered in the course of the investigation. And it's not like it's hard to connect the dots between Trump's campaign colluding with Russians and Trump's campaign manager's illegal financial dealings with the Russians, Russian's illegal dealings in the US, Trump's personal lawyer illegally paying people off with campaign funds, etc.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
More specifically, the CBP's position is that they can keep all data that they inspect forever, and her lawsuit would force them to prove that they only used it to inspect her as she comes into the country, and to wipe the data now that they're done. This is an important lawsuit, because right now they're pulling all data from all devices that they 'inspect' (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us...) and have demanded social network credentials so that they can log into your account and capture your posts and friends. I'm sure it's all useful to them, but it sure feels unconstitutional, in a country founded on freedom and individual rights.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
If a US citizen is crossing the border to re-enter the US, and the border guards demand social network credentials that they will use to rummage through that citizen's account, that would seem to me to be outside of any constitutional authority. No one is carrying their social network data with them as they cross the border.
If people who aren't citizens are crossing the border to enter the US for a visit, it seems like its a very unfriendly thing to demand. It's not like everyone has to bring a dossier with them detailing their personal life. I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't provide any of my credentials to the guards at a foreign border just to enter that country; I would choose to stay out.
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 would agree that it does not. Which is why the person was not detained. However your and my definitions of "reasonable" are not relevant. In a practical sense it really only matters what the SOCTUS thinks about it. And the SCOTUS has demonstrated in the past that they are on the "ends justifies the means" bandwagon. The counter argument, which I think has some flaws, is that the phone is a container, it contains data, and that all other containers are subject to search, why not the phone? If someone comes in with a box that can't be opened for inspection, it can be seized. By the way, if you are trying to say that unlocking of a phone is the same level of intrusion as an anal cavity search then I don't know how to address that.
Non-citizens as well.
Cheap storage VM.
It should.
Cheap storage VM.
Which is basically everywhere inside our borders because the interpretation is that airports count as borders.
Just another day in Paradise
But, at least, there are several of those to choose from
Both a billionaire and a minimum-wage worker can buy any plan they want!
In reality, you have 1 to 3 plans your employer signed up for, all from the same insurance company with the same provider network. Your "choices" are to pay more per month, or pay more per time you use the insurance.
If that insurance company sucks, too bad. You should have bought better hookers and blow for HR so they'd pick a plan that's good for you.
Change jobs? Well, the company they contracted with is just as bad.
And there's little reason to expect an employer will stay with the same insurance company year-over-year, so it's shitty plan switch to new shitty plan....but they did a better job of bribing HR.
With a government-run plan, I at least have a say in electing who runs the plan.
Switching to the "single payer" — a dog-whistle for "government run" — would make it even worse.
Medicare is the only insurance program in the US with a >50% approval rating in polls....and it's in the 60s to 70s depending on the poll. Every private insurance company polls at 40% or less.
That's really odd if government-run is inherently worse......almost like it isn't actually inherently worse and it takes things like underfunding the VA or NHS for a couple decades to make them look bad.
Yes, the inexplicable connection between employment and health-insurance, which the federal government caused back in the 1940ies with its price-controls, and continues to encourage today with tax-credits, ought to end. Adding more government will not fix it.
This sucks, but if a particular provider becomes too abusive, your employer is likely to change them. There is still some need for them to listen to customer feedback. On contrast, if the glorious "single payer" system is ever implemented, you'll be stuck with the same no matter who you are or what you do. To put into the terms you're sure to understand: Do you want President Trump to run your healthcare?
We already have the public school monopoly — for which we now pay 4 times more than 50 years ago without any improvement in quality...
Curiously, you aren't citing anything to back up this claim.
Another unsubstantiated claim...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.