| ▲ | LorenPechtel a day ago | |||||||
There has always been a difference between physical presence and actually being considered in a country, this is not unique to the US by any means. From a practical standpoint it's impossible to not physically enter a country before being admitted except by means of airports that do pre-clearance. Until you have been admitted to the country you are required to proceed directly to the station where your admissibility is evaluated. You may not go anywhere else except in an emergency. In the US there's no self indictment but it's interpreted as applying to anything in your mind, not to physical things. You can not be compelled to answer a question (except if you have been granted immunity about what you will say) but things like your fingerprints are fair game. Likewise, your phone. The part of this case that I find bad is that there are no charges. This was a fishing expedition, cops can't get warrants for fishing expeditions. I find using the border patrol's ability to inspect arriving individuals for local law enforcement way out of line. | ||||||||
| ▲ | xlii 17 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> ...this is not unique to the US by any means I've searched and found that Australia has similar concept. According to EU laws person on-territory is under jurisdictiction of said territory (even though it might bar from entering, but still EU/local laws apply there) - this is probably why I'm so surprised. Also regarding this exact nuke-phone-through-distress-password: in many European countries it's perfectly legal to protect oneself from law. While the law is nuanced (i.e. one might not be obligated to provide password, and responsibility for destruction can be put on forces as they could be found at failure when securing device), usually it's fair game. In the end I just find this terrifying. The idea that I'm getting back from vacations and then I get myself as probed like that. Here, the only things I'm afraid of are... queues. | ||||||||
| ||||||||