this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
561 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

58012 readers
3107 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal district court in New York has ruled that U.S. border agents must obtain a warrant before searching the electronic devices of Americans and international travelers crossing the U.S. border.

The ruling on July 24 is the latest court opinion to upend the U.S. government’s long-standing legal argument, which asserts that federal border agents should be allowed to access the devices of travelers at ports of entry, like airports, seaports and land borders, without a court-approved warrant.

“The ruling makes clear that border agents need a warrant before they can access what the Supreme Court has called ‘a window into a person’s life,’” Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, one of the groups that filed in the case, said in a press release Friday.

The district court’s ruling takes effect across the U.S. Eastern District of New York, which includes New York City-area airports like John F. Kennedy International Airport, one of the largest transportation hubs in the United States.

Critics have for years argued that these searches are unconstitutional and violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unwarranted searches and seizures of a person’s electronic devices.

In this court ruling, the judge relied in part on an amicus brief filed on the defendant’s behalf that argued the unwarranted border searches also violate the First Amendment on grounds of presenting an “unduly high” risk of a chilling effect on press activities and journalists crossing the border.

With several federal courts ruling on border searches in recent years, the issue of their legality is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, unless lawmakers act sooner.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The real lesson here is Lemmy/Reddit is no substitution for a lawyer. ACLU spells it out but in the end there are a lot of circumstances that apply.

Ultimately, if you're a US Citizen, and that's not in question, they can only take your stuff, they can't arrest you.

Ars interviewed an attorney about this...

"For a US citizen, CBP essentially has to let them back into the country," Nathan Freed Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Ars. "They can't be detained indefinitely for refusing to provide a password. They may be detained for hours and they may seize the phone for weeks or months while [CBP tries] to break into it."

So, take it however you will.

For what it's worth I've done a bit over 1.6 million air miles on Delta for work and have the silly keychain tag to prove it, and the only time customs has ever given me shit was at YYZ, the Canadians are no joke if you come in on a US passport, and you'd better have proof you're not coming there for 3 days to do a job that a Canadian could do. In my case I was training some Canadians but People Ops were kind enough not to get me the paperwork I needed.

Most big companies have training for their international travelers as well, the ones I've worked with always say to surrender passwords and equipment, and contact SecOps to let them know as soon as you safely can, some even have nice systems that print out invitation letters and proof of ownership for equipment including serial numbers.

Edit: CBP is NOT a court order to provide a password. If a court orders it and you refuse, well that's contempt, and the list of people who've sat in prison refusing is no joke.