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
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:16PM
People still run the operating system provided when buying the device? Time to change..
(Score: 4, Informative) by lx on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:23PM (10 children)
Great. I'll go somewhere else on holiday.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:48PM (9 children)
I'm not from the US, but I can't find anything in the constitution that would limit the fourth amendment to US citizens only.
"The right of the people to be secure " Can't find a definition of "the people" in it. I'm not trying that hard, as it wouldn't change my mind on travelling to the US anytime soon anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:57PM (4 children)
It's not the law that says foreigners have no rights, but the law has to be applied by people, and we've become an ugly culture that no longer believes in rights or even understands them.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:35PM
Shining city on the hill inDEED.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:02PM
Not to mention the seeming perception that the Constitution is something to be worked around rather than obeyed these days.
Anyone who can't see that the data on electronic devices equates to "papers" in "persons, houses, papers, and effects" is being intentionally blind. But hey, we can be forced to give up our encryption keys so they can parallel construct a reason for having arrested us in the first place, so fuck everything. Our government is ethically bankrupt.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:53PM (1 child)
I've been making that point for years, it's absolutely true. The Constitution just speaks of the rights of the people.
It's not the law that says foreigners have no rights, but the law has to be applied by people, and we've become an ugly culture that no longer believes in rights or even understands them.
According to this analysis [findlaw.com]:
Given the above, I guess that those who are not residents of the U.S. shouldn't come here if they value their privacy.
That's sad.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:15AM
Or anything else. The decision may be specific to privacy rights but the rationale implicates ALL human rights.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:04PM (2 children)
The Constitution does not grant us rights, nor does the government.
Our rights are "God-Given", and the Constitution exists to specify those unalienable rights against attack from the Government, which is subordinate to the Constitution, in principle, though it does interpret it.
The issue is that people seem to flock to this country that they hate so much, and yet, they want to live here and enjoy the milk and honey, so they vote for larger government which increases infringement on those rights.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:03AM (1 child)
Our rights are "God-Given"
Ahhh, that explains why our rights are being treated like toilet paper, then. No court to my knowledge has ever admitted evidence that any type of gods even exist.
I would prefer to say that the people grant limited powers to their governments.
And yes, obviously, "the people" includes all, ummm, people.
When a court conjures up some complicated definition of "people" I want to remind them that the Constitution establishes the courts and is therefore superior. No court ruling can redefine the plain language of the Constitution.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:57PM
Mmm... do they recognize "acts of God"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:36AM
"The people," to American's founders, had a meaning roughly equivalent to one's "peeps," "posse," "homies" or "crew" today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DavePolaschek on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:31PM (1 child)
According to https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/lawmakers-propose-law-requiring-warrants-to-search-electronics-at-us-border/ [arstechnica.com]:
As we're seeing with the ISP privacy law, there's privacy for Congress, and then there's privacy for the rest of us, which is an entirely different privacy. Some animals truly are more equal than others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:32AM
As we're seeing with the ISP privacy law, there's privacy for Congress, and then there's privacy for the rest of us,
What? There is no exemption for congressional privacy in the recently passed rollback of restrictions on ISPs trafficing in their customer's privacy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:00PM (6 children)
Not only border security, but police need to be able to search your devices without a warrant after arresting you. The need to search is to find or manufacture evidence to justify the arrest. This is because they can no longer use 'resisting arrest' as the reason for an arrest.
Border security needs these powers in order to justify refusing entry to someone. After having made a decision to refuse entry to someone because they look like someone that should not enter the United States, for various undefined reasons; it is then necessary to search the person's devices to either find or manufacture a basis for denial of entry to the US.
Hope that helps.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:21PM (5 children)
There are other ways of getting around the rule that you can't arrest someone solely for resisting arrest.
For instance, many people who've been in political protests have been arrested for assaulting an officer's boot with their groin, or assaulting the officer's nightstick with the top of their head. And as of Jan 20, 2017, standing near somebody else who is being arrested with a press pass and camera is also something you can be arrested for, if you are in Washington D.C. What those cops are taking advantage of is that even if the charges are dismissed the next day, they've been able to legally beat up and search their target even though said target did not violate the law.
And of course, for non-white people, there's always the option of a cop bringing some drugs along with 'em, claiming that their target dropped said drugs, and arresting them. Also, for states where pot is still illegal, if a cop wants to search a car they can claim that they smell dope as soon as their target rolls down the window (one reason we know about this tactic is that many cops in Colorado and Oregon were complaining that they could no longer do this once pot was legalized).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:26PM (1 child)
How about a transitive arrest rule? If you are standing next to someone being arrested, then you can be arrested. Repeat. Now the whole crowd can be arrested.
Sort of like McCarthyism. If you are a communist sympathizer or a friend of one, then you are anti-American. If you know anyone who is anti-American, then you are also anti-American. Repeat. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:00AM
Actually I suspect this is exactly how they are using metadata intercepts.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)
Also, for states where pot is still illegal, if a cop wants to search a car they can claim that they smell dope as soon as their target rolls down the window (one reason we know about this tactic is that many cops in Colorado and Oregon were complaining that they could no longer do this once pot was legalized).
I have often wondered about one going about challenging claims like this in court. In my youth I drove a shitty beater car and once got pulled over for peeling out from a stop light, problem is the car was such a PoS that it physically couldn't squeal the tires (I actually had some pretty good ones on it which made it even less likely). When the cop asked if he could search the car I said no so he went stuck me in the back of the squad and called in a K-9 unit that magically alerted and I was asked if there was anything in the trunk they should know about. My response was no. They went and searched the trunk and found my tools as well as a bunch of spare parts which led to questions about why do I have tools and car parts in my car. My response was I drive a rolling pile of shit that like to throw belts, has a questionable starter, and likes to foul the spark plug in cylinder #4 (I think it was #4). Dumped everything on the ground and still didn't find anything because there wasn't anything to fucking find. After about an hour they let me out of the squad and said that if I didn't pick up all of my stuff I would get a ticket for littering. I demanded their badge numbers and the next day went and filed a complaint but that "got lost" when I went to check on it a few weeks later.
So what I wonder is if the cop claims that they smelled pot or that their stupid drug dog alerted so then they search the car and eventually ticket or charge you with something but the initial premise of the search was false could one get it thrown out in court. Say I get a team to sample the vehicle and they can confirm that there was not pot smoke residue in the car ever. Seriously like a gas chromatograph from multiple labs says 0 parts per billion of pot smoke, pot, or any other controlled substance as well as several other tests that also show none. At that point it would seem that the cop is either lying in court in which case they then need to be brought up on perjury charges, or they have been shown to be incompetent and that there wasn't any probable cause as their nose clearly lies and all previous cases need to be re-examined. Either way the current case should be tossed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:37PM (1 child)
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.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:51PM
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
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:04PM (2 children)
"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."
Is that where you've finally ended up? Anyone not American is a criminal or terrorist?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:58PM
Is that where you've finally ended up? Anyone not American is a criminal or terrorist?
Sadly, this law, if passed (currently doubtful), would move us back to that point. The current state of affairs seems to be that "Everyone is a criminal or terrorist" and have no right to be treated otherwise.
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:04PM
Yes, and anyone American is a collaborator, a sympathizer or a potential subversive force. All of these must be contained!
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:18PM (3 children)
I'm not sure many people realize how few protections against searches are afforded at an international border. The typical standards of the Fourth Amendment do not apply [wikipedia.org].
Basically, border officials have been able to ask you to open up anything and search anything, regardless of whether you're an American or foreigner. No warrant required. In the past, they've done stuff like require the disassembly of an automobile gas tank [wikipedia.org] with no legal justification whatsoever. On the few occasions where courts have ruled that legal justification is required for a search, the standard adopted has been reasonable suspicion [wikipedia.org], a vague and flexible standard significantly less than the clear "probable cause" required for a warrant. Classic example is the SCOTUS ruling [wikipedia.org] that basically said a rectal example and extended detention at the border is justified with only "reasonable suspicion" and does not require a warrant. Generally speaking, border officials can open any container or document, etc. (including, for example, any piece of international mail) with no justification needed at all.
In sum, you have almost no expectation of privacy at the border, and it has basically been so since 1789 when the first laws on border searches were passed even before the Bill of Rights.
With all that in mind, the idea that a WARRANT could actually be required for a border search is really unprecedented. I'm all in favor of such protections -- but just noting how significant this proposal is, considering established law. At best, we have some previous Circuit Court decisions [wikipedia.org] and proposal legislation that might create a "reasonable suspicion" standard for laptop/electronic device searches. But a warrant, requiring actual probable cause? That would be something if they could actually pass such a thing.
(Score: 2) by driven on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:37PM
If they want your phone data, something tells me they will find a way to get it.
"Oh you just came through the Canadian border? Let's see what dirt _they_ have on you"
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:53PM
When I wonder is what obligation am I under to help them interpret the data they find. As far as I know I still have 1st and 5th amendment rights at the border and being an American I cannot be denied entry to my country.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:08AM
Unless there is some drastic about face, this Canadian is never going to the US again... ever.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:31PM (3 children)
Better source than buzzfeed: thehill.com [thehill.com]
For those of us willing to give support to the bill, contact your senators [senate.gov] and representatives. [house.gov]
Mention the bill by name:
Protecting Data at the Border Act
Bonus points if you're in one of the sponsors' states: encourage your congress members to support their local colleague. If one of the sponsors is your representative or senator, call and thank them.
Small acts of support add up.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:52PM (2 children)
Since it's not mentioned in the summary, the 4 privacy minded politicians who deserve some props:
Ron Wyden (D) - Oregon
Rand Paul (R) - Kentucky
Jared Polis (D) - Colorado
Blake Farenthold (R) - Texas
Glad to see it's bi-partisan...
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:21PM
That is nice to see. Also, perhaps to correct the summary, (or perhaps I'm wring): I don't think they can refuse entry to an American citizen for not providing passwords with things as they stand now, they can just be a pain in the ass, and seize and make copies of your devices. Non US citizens have always been able to be refused for any reason whatsoever. That's fine, but they really need to stop stating that they don't discriminate based of race,religion, politics, gender, etc, as that's blatantly untrue.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:01PM
Wyden and Paul don't surprise me but I haven't heard of the other 2. Which being senators not from my state is probably a good thing since that means they likely aren't a giant flaming bags of stupid shit. This must mean that all 4 are terrorist loving alt-right commie Kenyan Muslim Klan fascists hell bent on stealing my gun, bible, and pirating copies of Batman Vs. Superman Dawn of Justice and the Hottie and the Nottie while setting up death panels and denying abortion to unborn baby whales who are suffering under global cooling. Or that is how they will be portrayed in the media shortly.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:53PM (3 children)
Apparently, there's another piece of legislation in the works that would mandate all foreigners from countries such as the UK or France (or other EU member states) to hand over smart phones and social media passwords [theguardian.com] when entering the USA.
To put this in perspective of the USA'ians here: would any of you even remotely consider giving such info to the EU border patrol to enter Europe?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:54AM (2 children)
If there is one tiny bit of computer security advice that has somewhat permeated the typical Luser brain it is this: never share your password with anyone for any reason. Ever!
Think about this Mr. Keystone Kop: If I give you my password, I now have deniability for anything that is done from this moment forward and appearing to have been done by me! Do you really want to destroy your Chain of Custody like that?
Sure, I get the explanation for examining anything that crosses the border. My electronics are crossing the border. Examine them all you want. My password is not crossing the border. It is not stored in my devices and it is not stored in my brain. I generate it using an algorithm. In fact, I have thousands of passwords. There's no possible chance I could remember them all.
You want me to teach you the algorithm? Are you prepared to follow in my footsteps and spend decades learning about computers? Because that is the source of the prerequisite body of knowledge. Even if I were to describe it to you, you wouldn't understand. And where do I get burdened with a proactive duty to teach you my professional skill set?
Yeah, I suppose you can confiscate my stuff, but then after you get your grubby malware-soaked mitts on it I probably don't want it back anyway.
Or... this could be so much easier... maybe I just won't take my phone across the border in the first place!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:15AM
Arguing with border guards is one way to ensure they'll make your life hell. Vindictive bastards...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:11PM
Step 1. Keep your phone on you all the time
Step 2. Never let your phone cross the USA border
Step 3. ...
Step 4. Profit!
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0