Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday January 06 2018, @08:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-say-no dept.

Encrypt and lock your electronic devices, because the border agents want to touch them:

Customs officers stationed at the American border and at airports searched an estimated 30,200 cellphones, computers and other electronic devices of people entering and leaving the United States last year — an almost 60 percent increase from 2016, according to Homeland Security Department data released on Friday.

Despite the surge, Customs and Border Protection officials said the searches affected fewer than 1 percent of the more than 300 million travelers who arrived in the United States last year.

Homeland Security officials say border searches are an important investigative tool and are used sparingly by its agents. "In this digital age, border searches of electronic devices are essential to enforcing the law at the U.S. border and to protecting the American people," said John Wagner, the deputy executive assistant commissioner at Customs and Border Protection. Mr. Wagner said the agency was committed to preserving the rights and civil liberties of travelers whose devices are searched.

Also at ABC.


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This discussion has been archived.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 dry on Monday January 08 2018, @01:53AM (5 children)

    by dry (223) on Monday January 08 2018, @01:53AM (#619357) Journal

    There's a weasel word there, unreasonable. As long as they can argue reasonable, they're free to search and seize to their hearts content.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:19AM (#619429)

    That's where the voices of the masses help to define unreasonable vs reasonable.

    But from what I hear the US border + X area is considered a zone where the constitution doesn't even apply: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone [aclu.org]

  • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday January 08 2018, @01:53PM (3 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 08 2018, @01:53PM (#619496) Journal

    As long as they can argue reasonable

    Well, the definition of reasonable is spelled out pretty clearly.

    • Search warrant (not "hey I've got an idea")
    • Issued because of probable cause (not "general principle")
    • Supported by oath or affirmation (not "just in case")
    • Specifically describing the person, place, or thing to be searched/seized (not "everyone and his dog, at random/profile").

    Now, that's not even much of a standard (any judge can issue a warrant to intrusively search any innocent based on any law enforcement officer's affirmation of his unsubstantiated theories), but any presumptive border search falls far short of even that. Making it, by the definition, an unreasonable search.

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday January 08 2018, @04:11PM (2 children)

      by dry (223) on Monday January 08 2018, @04:11PM (#619548) Journal

      Didn't you miss crossing the border, or lately it seems, within a 100 miles of the border or airports. I believe it is also considered reasonable to search people when going into government buildings and various other places that you "voluntarily" use such as stadiums.

      • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday January 08 2018, @05:50PM (1 child)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 08 2018, @05:50PM (#619597) Journal

        crossing the border...within a 100 miles of the border or airports...considered reasonable to search people when going into government buildings and various other places that you "voluntarily" use such as stadiums.

        Well, yes, courts have ruled that it's "reasonable" to do so, but again: the definition of reasonable isn't an opinion, but rather a written one containing easily demonstrable premises: For a reasonable search, there was warrant issued, on sworn testimony, concerning probable cause based on articulable suspicion of a particular crime, specifically naming who/what/where shall be searched, and specifically what is sought in the search.

        I "voluntarily" use my home, car, workplace, stores and local businesses, buses, trains, etc. "Voluntarily" cuts no ice with me, as I don't believe it should, despite that being an argument made for such a search not being an unreasonable one.

        I submit that travel, crossing a border, being within x miles/km of a border, and "voluntarily" watching a match in a stadium are all too nonspecific and broad to possibly give probable cause that one traveling, existing, or watching is engaged in the commission of a specific crime.

        I believe that searching at random does not make me more safe (except occasionally, by accident); but rather, more oppressed (and that, consistently and intentionally).

        That's my view, and it seems like an extreme minority one despite being enshrined in the US constitution. Does this view make sense to you? If there's something I am missing about it, I would genuinely want to know.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday January 08 2018, @06:08PM

          by dry (223) on Monday January 08 2018, @06:08PM (#619605) Journal

          I agree with you, unluckily it seems the courts don't and they're the ones that count.