Everyone please read Surveillance Self Defense from EFF [0]
My advice, take a burner phone to the airport (and elsewhere?), and since devices are subject to warrantless search anywhere and everywhere, via exceptions to the fourth amendment [1] (the constitution seems designed to be bent or outright ignored), keep your data at home and encrypted. The "cloud" is a government data supermarket.
For example.
> While the Fourth Amendment is the foundation, federal and state laws can add layers of complexity. For example, the Patriot Act expanded the government's ability to conduct surveillance and searches, particularly in national security cases, sometimes with a lower burden of proof than traditional criminal investigations.
My thoughts exactly, when traveling abroad and specifically to the Devided States of America, use a burner phone and play stupid! Too bad when no one else can reach accept for ICE (In Case of Emergency) contacts but keep your phone clean from any private thoughts or discussions or (a)social media postings! If you do not you are going to burn yourself!
This whole Orange Clown era is scary AF. The Second Circuit has failed the people of the Devided States of America. The Frack that i'll be visiting the States any time soon. Hell No!
Doing a bit of research, this applies to what’s considered a “manual search” as in a CBP agent spending time manually looking at your phone. It does not appear to allow (or speak to?) plugging your phone into forensic tools for a deeper inspection.
Not great, but I think that’s what’s being specifically adjudicated here.
They still cannot deny an US citizen entry if you decline to unlock your phone, though they may confiscate your device. I don’t know if they would then be allowed to do deeper forensics without a warrant.
Since removing a nation-state rootkit is not structurally possible, how is this any different from requiring the device to be forfeited? If all search == seizure and destruction, does that change the legal basis?
This effectively means border patrol can do whatever they want in areas that do not involve a border crossing and involve citizens just living their normal lives
It probably depends how pissed off you made the officer at the border if he just wants to thumb through some recent text messages and photos to see if you're doing Crimes or if they're gonna go take it to the Cellebrite UFED in the backroom and dump it out.
In other words... whom (or what) was perceived to have pissed in the CBP officer's Wheaties this morning? We'll never know what grudges he holds to make his decision.
Isn't it telling that if your immediate thought is to subvert said LAW? That doesn't seem to be serving the people then does it, but the state. The state is supposed to serve its people
I assume journalists would already do this actually maybe they don't?
There dosent appear to be any import/export controls on the current internet is there?
If they say import export control gives them the right to search citizens maybe they should be aware of this giant gapping hole that the internet created 30+ years ago?
Anybody crossing the border. The justification is that the government's constitutional right to control imports overrides the 4th amendment right to privacy.
>“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.
> Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
> Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
So the argument is basically that Americans already consent to allowing customs to search anything and everything that they are physically bringing across the border, whether a US citizen or not, and now that is also affirmed to include the digital contents of electronic devices.
“Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,”
I think this is just an extension of a general we, as government officials protecting American freedoms, can do what we want and will justify it later if we have to policy.
It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering).
This is a blatant and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
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.
Everyone please read Surveillance Self Defense from EFF [0]
My advice, take a burner phone to the airport (and elsewhere?), and since devices are subject to warrantless search anywhere and everywhere, via exceptions to the fourth amendment [1] (the constitution seems designed to be bent or outright ignored), keep your data at home and encrypted. The "cloud" is a government data supermarket.
For example.
> While the Fourth Amendment is the foundation, federal and state laws can add layers of complexity. For example, the Patriot Act expanded the government's ability to conduct surveillance and searches, particularly in national security cases, sometimes with a lower burden of proof than traditional criminal investigations.
MUCH lower.
[0] https://ssd.eff.org/
[1] https://uslawexplained.com/warrantless_search
My thoughts exactly, when traveling abroad and specifically to the Devided States of America, use a burner phone and play stupid! Too bad when no one else can reach accept for ICE (In Case of Emergency) contacts but keep your phone clean from any private thoughts or discussions or (a)social media postings! If you do not you are going to burn yourself!
This whole Orange Clown era is scary AF. The Second Circuit has failed the people of the Devided States of America. The Frack that i'll be visiting the States any time soon. Hell No!
Doing a bit of research, this applies to what’s considered a “manual search” as in a CBP agent spending time manually looking at your phone. It does not appear to allow (or speak to?) plugging your phone into forensic tools for a deeper inspection.
Not great, but I think that’s what’s being specifically adjudicated here.
They still cannot deny an US citizen entry if you decline to unlock your phone, though they may confiscate your device. I don’t know if they would then be allowed to do deeper forensics without a warrant.
Since removing a nation-state rootkit is not structurally possible, how is this any different from requiring the device to be forfeited? If all search == seizure and destruction, does that change the legal basis?
I thought this was already allowed and the norm for many years?
You are right. What most people don’t understand however is that “the border” extends for 100 miles
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
This effectively means border patrol can do whatever they want in areas that do not involve a border crossing and involve citizens just living their normal lives
Is it a visual search, or do they make a copy of all your data?
This case is about a “visual search” as in CBP agent going through your photos. Not forensic tools copying / analyzing all the data
It probably depends how pissed off you made the officer at the border if he just wants to thumb through some recent text messages and photos to see if you're doing Crimes or if they're gonna go take it to the Cellebrite UFED in the backroom and dump it out.
In other words... whom (or what) was perceived to have pissed in the CBP officer's Wheaties this morning? We'll never know what grudges he holds to make his decision.
So store your data in a secure location and only access it with devices if your a journalist?
Isn't it telling that if your immediate thought is to subvert said LAW? That doesn't seem to be serving the people then does it, but the state. The state is supposed to serve its people
I assume journalists would already do this actually maybe they don't?
There dosent appear to be any import/export controls on the current internet is there?
If they say import export control gives them the right to search citizens maybe they should be aware of this giant gapping hole that the internet created 30+ years ago?
The article is not that clear in one way. Does this only apply to non-US Citizens ?
Anybody crossing the border. The justification is that the government's constitutional right to control imports overrides the 4th amendment right to privacy.
>“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_o...
Worse though, is that the definition of border is hella loose. CBP can be many MANY miles away from an actual border and do this.
from https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_...
> Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
from https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
> Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
100 miles to be clear. So many major cities are free reign. Entire counties.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
So the argument is basically that Americans already consent to allowing customs to search anything and everything that they are physically bringing across the border, whether a US citizen or not, and now that is also affirmed to include the digital contents of electronic devices.
Near the top of the article:
“Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,”
I think this is just an extension of a general we, as government officials protecting American freedoms, can do what we want and will justify it later if we have to policy.
It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering).
East Germany built a wall to keep their citizens "free" of "fascist elements"...
You understand that no one actually believed that lie. It was built to stop people from running to west Germany.
This is a blatant and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.
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.
This has not been true since 1977 at the very least, but Fourth Amendment exception at the border has been around for longer than even that.