Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the (privacy++) dept.

Four privacy-minded lawmakers have introduced legislation requiring law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant before searching phones belonging to US citizens, and prohibiting them from barring entry to Americans who decline to share their passwords at the border.

"Americans' Constitutional rights shouldn't disappear at the border," Senator Ron Wyden said in statement to BuzzFeed News. "By requiring a warrant to search Americans' devices and prohibiting unreasonable delay, this bill makes sure that border agents are focused on criminals and terrorists instead of wasting their time thumbing through innocent Americans' personal photos and other data."

[...] The bill would require law enforcement to establish probable cause before searching or seizing a phone belonging to an American. "Manual searches," in which a border agent flips through a person's stored pictures would be covered under the proposed law as well. But the bill does allow for broad emergency exceptions.

"The government should not have the right to access your personal electronic devices without probable cause," Rep. Polis told BuzzFeed news in a statement. "Whether you are at home, walking down the street, or at the border, we must make it perfectly clear that our Fourth Amendment protections extend regardless of location. This bill is overdue, and I am glad we can come together in a bicameral, bipartisan manner to ensure that Customs and Border Patrol agents don't continue to violate essential privacy safeguards."

Source: Buzzfeed


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:37PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:37PM (#489385)

    I have often wondered about one going about challenging claims like this in court.

    That's the fun part: The only thing that matters is that the cop believed there was the smell of pot, whether or not there actually was. You can't prove he didn't believe it, even if it wasn't true. Ergo, the search is always legal, even if it was completely unjustified.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:51PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:51PM (#489628) Homepage

    And that is the problem that I wonder if it can be challenged. Unfortunately given the rulings around drug dogs [washingtonpost.com] I would venture that you are correct but would still love to see it tested in court with incontrovertible evidence showing that there is no way the cop could have smelled pot. Benjamin Franklin was right [bartleby.com] but it seems his wisdom is all too frequently ignored in far too many cases.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone