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

Technology

59589 readers
2910 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
[–] kautau@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

With something like iCloud backup, It would be as simple as wiping your phone before going through border patrol, and then restoring it once you are through. Seems like a violation of privacy that's easy to get around for those that want to, and a waste of resources searching the phones of those people who don't care enough to wipe their phone

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you have reason to think you'll get searched, methods like this can be very effective. If you're entering the USA and you're not a citizen, there's a chance having a freshly wiped phone will lead to you being denied entry.

Evidently quite a few people who have evidence of crimes on their phones don't do that sort of thing; the person in the ruling this article about is accused of possessing child sexual abuse media on his phone. It probably isn't a waste of resources with regard to finding evidence of crimes like that; it is a cheat code for searches that would ordinarily be unconstitutional, at least in judicial districts where the courts haven't cracked down on it yet.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah I guess if you aren’t a citizen and have a blank phone that could be a red flag, makes sense. The fact that it’s managed to find stuff to me still doesn’t make it ethical. Seems like the type of thing where the NSA will contract palantir to write software to rapidly copy the contents of your entire device and add it to a database about you, which as of now may not be used for nefarious means, but that only depends on who is in power.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

The RICO case against the Stop Cop City protestors in Atlanta is using blank phones of protestors--who are all American citizens--as proof of criminal intent and conspiracy. It's a catch-22; lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.

load more comments (1 replies)