Jacinda Ardern is a badass MF and I want her for Shah of the U.S.

[elfenix 34747]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  And the one that can search ALL of your devices within 100 miles of a port of entry.  That CBP.

The irony is that 99% of the "strict constitutionalist!" yahoos out there are JUST FINE with "law and order" that completely obliterates core constitutional rights.  Because, you know...."those people" have it coming.

and this is ultimately the problem with the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' 'standard.'  if they post a sign telling you that you have no expectation of privacy and you will be subject to search, it makes search by dick measuring device legal. 

[TwiceHorn 32074]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I agree that there is a difference, but I think reality instructs us that the difference is a lot thinner than we'd like to think or admit.  Unwritten constitution vs. written constitution, we still got Korematsu.  We still ended up with a 4th amendment where the "exceptions" have swallowed the rule.  In terms of shakiness, you're arguing the difference between a 7.5 and a 7.6 quake -- the difference doesn't matter, your house is falling down.

I still maintain that our house is a little better built.  But I take your points, and they are good ones.

[TwiceHorn 32074]

Just out of curiosity, I checked the status of CBP inspections of electronics.  There is no authorization in any US law for CBP to "get into" your electronics.  There are miscellaneous customs-related laws pertaining to inspection of "baggage" and "merchandise," and the like, but nothing I can easily find that authorizes intrusive searches of electronics.  CBP itself cites only those provisions and two Supreme Court cases, one dealing with gas tank searches at the border and one generally dealing with searches at the border.

All of these deal with the government's alleged need to discover contraband or illegal aliens.

Because you can't fit most contraband, or illegal aliens into a computer, tablet or phone, and in view of the recent decisions recognizing electronic privacy, I think theres a pretty good chance the 4th Amendment proscribes that kind of warrantless search at the border.

I nominate VAPA to go try to make a case out of it.

/end concern troll

Edited April 3, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[workswithseed 2204]

So you're saying is that we don't really have a breach of privacy after crossing the border?

[Brisketexan 106880]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just out of curiosity, I checked the status of CBP inspections of electronics.  There is no authorization in any US law for CBP to "get into" your electronics.  There are miscellaneous customs-related laws pertaining to inspection of "baggage" and "merchandise," and the like, but nothing I can easily find that authorizes intrusive searches of electronics.  CBP itself cites only those provisions and two Supreme Court cases, one dealing with gas tank searches at the border and one generally dealing with searches at the border.

Authorization, schmauthorization, they're doing it.  From the NYT:

Quote

The policies that give border agents the latitude to search or seize devices were used under the Obama administration, to much criticism. There’s no available data to suggest that they are happening more under the administration of President Trump, though activists say they have anecdotally heard of more reports.

A customs agency spokesman said the agency could not comment on individual cases. But he said agents had inspected 4,444 cellphones and 320 other electronic devices in 2015, amounting to 0.0012 percent of the 383 million arrivals. In fiscal year 2016, the searches of electronic devices rose to 23,000.

Can agents force you to unlock your phone or laptop?

No. But they can ask you to comply voluntarily and make the experience rather uncomfortable if you resist. Travelers must decide how much trouble they’re willing to put up with.

You may end up losing your device, since agents could seize the device for weeks before it is returned. They could also copy the data. (That data must be destroyed “as expeditiously as possible” if it is not valuable, according to Homeland Security policy.)

They can demand access to your device.  If you refuse to give it, they can seize it.

My firm is already aware that in the event that ANY of us face a CBP demand to allow access to a device that allows them to access confidential client information (which can happen any time we travel internationally, or even close to the border -- which happens a good bit), we are to refuse, and to let them seize the device, and try to crack it.  But we cannot and will not voluntarily grant access.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Brisketexan

[workswithseed 2204]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Authorization, schmauthorization, they're doing it.  From the NYT:

They can demand access to your device.  If you refuse to give it, they can seize it.

My firm is already aware that in the event that ANY of us face a CBP demand to allow access to a device that allows them to access confidential client information (which can happen any time we travel internationally, or even close to the border -- which happens a good bit), we are to refuse, and to let them seize the device, and try to crack it.  But we cannot and will not voluntarily grant access.

Well fuck that, I wished we didn't give away our rights after 9/11. 

[Brisketexan 106880]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Well fuck that, I wished we didn't give away our rights after 9/11. 

We're so skeered of mooslims and mexicans (from all the mexicos) that we happily hand over our rights on a silver platter.  Anything's worth it, because the browns.  But also, the constitution is sacred and we're strict constitutionalists and stuff.  And yeah, if you can't figure out that inconsistency.....use this handy chart to sort it out:

[workswithseed 2204]

Do you think we can real it back? I mean it doesn't seem that way, but hopefully us millenials and gen x will do something. 

It's funny that New Zealand is going the same way after one shooting. What will they do if it happens again? Take away all flintlocks? It's just sad all around.

[atomheartbevo 90640]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They can demand access to your device.  If you refuse to give it, they can seize it.

My firm is already aware that in the event that ANY of us face a CBP demand to allow access to a device that allows them to access confidential client information (which can happen any time we travel internationally, or even close to the border -- which happens a good bit), we are to refuse, and to let them seize the device, and try to crack it.  But we cannot and will not voluntarily grant access.

When I was working with one o the larger tech companies, we had a lot of folks who traveled overseas (and a lot of furriners) working in our group.  We were handling lots of different data (government work, contract work, etc.), and we either sent their encrypted laptops ahead, used laptops already on site, or basically sent empty laptops with the workers, with fake admin accounts and the baritone apps, along with mostly blank phones with just contact info,  and then have them VPN in for whatever they needed to do.

Linux used to confuse the shit out of them, so that was something we used when we couldn't send a laptop ahead or didn't trust the onsite connections, etc. - we could encrypt whatever data we need, dump the files into an arcane directory, and they would never see it.  They usually didn't spend more than a minute or two poking around Linux-loaded laptops anyways, probably because they didn't want to feel stupid.

We had a gay employee in our group whose desktop background was a photo of him and his boyfriend on the beach.   He said when CBP agents opened it up and logged in, they usually found a reason to quickly close it up and give it back to him.

I am guessing that it's not a bigger issue, because nobody wants to say "hey they can't look at our phones or laptops" because they don't want to be labeled a pervert or druggie or whatever.

As for me, they can browse through all of the nude pics of Surly wives I have, even make copies, and it doesn't bother me.

[TwiceHorn 32074]

It appears that a circuit split is developing on the issue, so it may be at SCOTUS soon.  At least we have that.

[Brisketexan 106880]

It appears that a circuit split is developing on the issue, so it may be at SCOTUS soon.  At least we have that.

Oh. Thank goodness. The true protectors of the 4th amendment will get into the game. Huzzah. We’re saved.