BOSTON—In a major victory for privacy rights at the border, a federal court in Boston ruled today that suspicionless searches of travelers’ electronic devices by federal agents at airports and other U.S. ports of entry are unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan, filed...
What are you talk about? We are having to win rights back that were already afforded to us by the Constitution. It is a TRAVESTY that it has taking this long for the courts to reaffirm over 4th Amendment.
And I somehow see that those people (and I am in that group) will be considered as "having something to hide" and held for long periods of time while they try to flex their pseudo-authority over us plebes.
Travelers entering US no longer subject to government fishing expeditions. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of illegal contraband before they can search a traveler’s device.
This is a big deal. The ruling isn't limited to "advanced searches" of phones with forensic devices. The court is saying that at least at Logan Airport, CBP can no longer do cursory searches of phones of arriving travelers which they do pretty often when people are in secondary inspection.
"You say you're not planning to marry your American girlfriend/work at your uncle's restaurant if we let you in? OK, let me see your phone and read your recent messages."
That's a very common tactic they use to sniff out travelers who are entering with impermissible immigrant intent or intent to work illegally. No longer allowed, at least not in Boston.
There’s more to it, the devil is in the details. The ruling states that ~~basic searches~~ what the DHS claimed to be basic searches (edited) now “require reasonable suspicion that the devices contain contraband”. While reasonable suspicion is a fairly low standard of proof (same as what cops need to pull you over), it has to be suspected that the device contains contraband, not evidence of contraband or other illegal activity. In other words, having reasonable suspicion that there is evidence on the device of the applicant intending to engage in unauthorized employment is not enough to search the device.
Wow I haven't read it closely yet, I probably should before commenting. I thought the Cotterman-type standard was reasonable suspicion of contraband or ongoing or imminent criminal activity was needed before doing an advanced search. So this is a big change if they can't even do basic searches with reasonable suspicion of evidence of illegal activity.
Yes, this is the relevant bit:
> This Court does not dispute that a cursory search of an electronic device—e.g., a brief look reserved to determining whether a device is owned by the person carrying it across the border, confirming that it is operational and that it contains data, D. 99 at 12—would fall within the border search exception and not require a heightened showing of cause. See, e.g., Cotterman, 709 F.3d at 960-61 (concluding that “a quick look and unintrusive search” of files on a laptop was a routine search, but a forensic search, “essentially a computer strip search” was nonroutine search requiring reasonable suspicion); Kim, 103 F. Supp. 3d at 57 (concluding that however the distinctions between a routine and forensic search are made by higher courts, the search at issue there was “qualitatively and quantitatively different from a routine border examination”). However, the range of searches that the Plaintiffs were subject to by CBP and ICE and the breadth of searches that continue to be permitted even as basic searches under the agencies’ current policies, are not such routine searches given the breadth of intrusion into personal information.
The TL;DR is that according to the court, basic search is limited to “ e.g., a brief look reserved to determining whether a device is owned by the person carrying it across the border, confirming that it is operational and that it contains data”. The courts disagrees with the DHS definition of what a basic search is.
Yeah, that's what seems pretty radical to me. The Cotterman court said a CBP officer flipping through your unlocked phone without suspicion, to look for evidence that you are up to no good, is fair game.
This court gives the example of turning on the phone to see that it's operational and contains and calls THAT a "basic search." But then it cites Cotterman.
So I'm not sure the court is saying basic search id limited to looking at whether the phone is operational etc. or if that's just an example of a basic search.
Not only were you *not able to refute* the fact that this was a Republican policy, you threw out this anti-American gem:
> You mean the democrats that supported the KKK and slavery?
Haha this Trumpling doesn't know about the [change in party platforms](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/13/ilhan-omar-stephen-miller-leaked-emails-anti-semitic-white-nationalist/) in the early 20th century!
Hahahaha you should have payed attention in history class.
> I did, you didn't...
> Here is your beloved Hilary and her links ....
Hahaha oh my god, the hole gets deeper.
I don't support *Hillary Clinton!!*
Haha you're 0 for 2, Trumpling.
*EDIT: Oh look, the brand new fresh Trumpling account with negative karma ran away. What a surprise.*
Section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, made famous in the case of [Muhammad Rabbani](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/25/campaign-group-director-in-court-for-refusing-to-divulge-passwords), head of international organisation Cage, which investigates human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of the "War On Terror".
Well, for TSA/customs, everbody leaving or entering the US is suspicious. If they have nothing to hide, why are they crossing borders in the first place? They are probably running away for something...
> Can the TSA/CBP/ICE just ignore it?
Not *right now,* but they'll probably get an injunction to let them keep doing it until the case goes to the right-wing Supreme Court which will overturn it.
Basically, the right wants these searches to *keep happening.*
Any infringement on the right to own weapons is unconstitutional. Yes some people can interpret "shall not be infringed" as "well it can be infringed a bit cause I went to law school so is all good bb". That doesn't mean they're right.