You’re way off about when it’s illegal to start destroying your property that the police want to seize during an investigation.

▲

GolfPopper 14 hours ago | parent [-]

"Investigation" is a pretty generous way to label "some thugs working for an authoritarian state want to look for incriminating stuff - including criticism or mockery of them or their leader - on your communications device".

Whatever the American legal system may say, a couple of thugs with no warrant conducting searches and seizures of data is a blatant violation of the Constitution's intent. This is the sort of behavior Americans used to rightfully condemn.

▲

samtheprogram 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Calling border patrol "thugs" doesn't really bolster your argument to anyone except people who already agree with you.

▲

RunSet 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I find that choice of words more likely to cause people who already disagree with them to fixate on it rather than the substance of their comment.

	▲	r_lee 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		it just makes those people dismiss it. doesn't really do any good. I'm all for privacy and find this seizure stuff really wrong but to me it just looks like another form of "orange man bad"
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

schoen 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would also like the fourth amendment to apply at the border.

Have you read United States v. Flores-Montano? The border search exception (which I disagree with) is pretty old. Can you find an era in which Americans in general found it objectionable or were united in rejecting its application to data?