Second Circuit Allows Government to Search Electronic Devices at the Border

jchanimal 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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?

▲

smalltorch 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So store your data in a secure location and only access it with devices if your a journalist?

▲

howdyhowdy 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	smalltorch 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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?

▲

phkahler 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it a visual search, or do they make a copy of all your data?

	▲	kotaKat 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

majorchord 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I thought this was already allowed and the norm for many years?

	▲	mingus88 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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

▲

jmclnx an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The article is not that clear in one way. Does this only apply to non-US Citizens ?

▲

weberer 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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...

	▲	petcat 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	howdyhowdy 19 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.

▲

tocs3 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

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).

▲

netsharc 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

East Germany built a wall to keep their citizens "free" of "fascist elements"...

	▲	tekla 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You understand that no one actually believed that lie. It was built to stop people from running to west Germany.