BajaNomad - What Are Your Rights if Border Agents Want to Search Your Phone?

Trump/Putin/Bannon did not implement this.
This authority has been on the books for a long time.

Opps....

mtgoat666 - 2-19-2017 at 09:44 AM

Trump/Putin/Bannon did not implement this.
This authority has been on the books for a long time.

Opps....

You don't read so well...
I agree. George bush started this.
I just said I hope that trump/putin/Bannon does not coopt it.
Capiche?

DaliDali - 2-19-2017 at 09:51 AM

Trump/Putin/Bannon did not implement this.
This authority has been on the books for a long time.

Opps....

You don't read so well...
I agree. George bush started this.
I just said I hope that trump/putin/Bannon does not coopt it.
Capiche?

I read just fine......YOU insinuate it's all Trumps fault.
One can just hope the CPB asks you to hand over your phone and YOU spend 30 days in the slammer for refusing a LAWFUL order where courts have deemed the entry into your phone at the border or any POE (port of entry for stupids like you) where people enter from a foreign country are LAWFUL.

If your searching for blame on all this.....look no farther than your friendly Islamic terrorist.

[Edited on 2-19-2017 by DaliDali]

4x4abc - 2-19-2017 at 10:21 AM

there is a lot of stuff in another book of laws, the bible.
We don't follow many of the laws in there any longer.

It's not what's in the books what defines us
it's what we chose to execute

David K - 2-19-2017 at 10:48 AM

I might add if one does not like the laws being followed for entering the U.S., either change the laws or don't leave the country! I find it refreshing that the laws we have had for years are finally being enforced.

Lee - 2-19-2017 at 11:33 AM

Just a bit behind the curve on this.

At the US border at MX and Canada, you have no rights. Canadian ICE is worse than the US.

Your phone will be confiscated if you refuse a password, and they'll figure it out, you might not get it back. Same with your laptop. IT's been like this for years.

Nothing to hide, no sweat. Not a big deal in the big picture.

Lee - 2-19-2017 at 11:36 AM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc

there is a lot of stuff in another book of laws, the bible.
We don't follow many of the laws in there any longer.

Well this is just not true in the US. Most of christianity follows the bible, thinks it the word of god and his law. MX catholics are down right scary. Funny thing belief systems.

gnukid - 2-19-2017 at 12:00 PM

This is a misinterpretation:

You can refuse to allow search and seizure of your personal items, they can confiscate them and then you can demand they be returned. They are required to show proof of a need to search or seize, however, it may take a while for the case to be heard. Nowadays there is nothing in the phone that isn't in your personal cloud that you would lose by them seizing the phone and eventually the device will be returned and you can also sue if after returning the device you can show they had no cause.

So, now people are refusing to give up their password and walking, away the devices are returned and eventually this trend will go away.

LE or homeland security can always ask and threaten and lie to get you to give up your privacy but that doesn't make it right or require you to do it. The best policy with any LE is to be polite but don't give up any passwords and just wait it out. They will soon get the hint they are wasting time and resources bothering nice people to make an impression they are doing something while it has no benefit to hassle nice people while there are many criminals passing by in process of criminal activity who could be targeted but often are not since broad corruption exists to allow contraband to cross the border.

[Edited on 2-19-2017 by gnukid]

Udo - 2-19-2017 at 12:20 PM

I might add if one does not like the laws being followed for entering the U.S., either change the laws or don't leave the country! I find it refreshing that the laws we have had for years are finally being enforced.

Lee - 2-19-2017 at 06:17 PM

Agree with everything above -- just not the way I would go about doing this. When I'm crossing, I'm on a schedule. Hanging around for a few hours or a day is not something I'll do. Seizure or detaining my device isn't something I want either.

Their call as to whether you can cross or not as well.

Anyone up for tilting at windmills have at it. Let us know how long it takes to get back your iPhone.

gnukid - 2-19-2017 at 09:04 PM

I would never let the gestapo search my phone. My phone will "wipe" memory upon 3 incorrect PW attempts. Probably easy to wipe phone to prevent gestapo goons prying into my life.

Sad! that the USA law enforcement agencies have turned into an out of control police state. Let's hope that Trump/Putin/Bannon does not coopt usa law enforcement to implement their warped totalitarian views.[/rquote

Just a bit behind the curve on this.

At the US border at MX and Canada, you have no rights. Canadian ICE is worse than the US.

Your phone will be confiscated if you refuse a password, and they'll figure it out, you might not get it back. Same with your laptop. IT's been like this for years.

Nothing to hide, no sweat. Not a big deal in the big picture.

Obviously some Nomads (who should know better about the 4th and 5th amendment to the USA constitution) dismiss a major point: No one is a default suspect or required to give up the basic right to freedom of search and seizure without reasonable suspicion or the right to liberty - not in USA or Mexico. So no one is required to nor should one give up their phone or computer password regardless of the short term convenience.

DaliDali - 2-20-2017 at 07:37 AM

How would you square that up with the Supremes giving border agents the authority to search anything and everything at the border, including phones and laptops?

The exact legal citation for our search authority can be found in Title 19 of the United States Code, Sections 482, 1467, 1496, 1581 and 1582. All persons, baggage, and other merchandise arriving in or leaving the United States are subject to inspection and search by CBP officers. Various laws (including 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1357, 19 U.S.C. 482, 1581, 1582) enforced by CBP authorize such searches.

The Supreme Court decisions have upheld the doctrine that CBP's search authority is unique and does not violate the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, with this authority, CBP expects all of its officers to conduct their duties in a professional manner, and treat each traveler respectfully.

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/176/~/cbp-searc...

mtgoat666 - 2-20-2017 at 07:54 AM

If people roll over and acquiesce the tyrants will only be emboldened and they will become ever more brutal.
We must resist brutal thugs!
Speak up! Silence just provides validation of thuggery!
Stand up for your rights! Don't give up the fight! :!:

bajaguy - 2-20-2017 at 08:02 AM

Obviously, "some Nomads who should know better" need to research the US Code and Supreme Court decisions on the subject.....probably the same Nomads who refuse to get an FMM when crossing into Mexico

Bubba - 2-20-2017 at 09:29 AM

Give it a rest.

chuckie - 2-20-2017 at 09:45 AM

We have no rights at the Border. Homeland Security will do whatever they want and after the fact we can fill out endless paperwork and whine and complain...Canadian Customs and immigration are worse..

thebajarunner - 2-20-2017 at 10:10 AM

Quote: Originally posted by chuckie

We have no rights at the Border. Homeland Security will do whatever they want and after the fact we can fill out endless paperwork and whine and complain...Canadian Customs and immigration are worse..

This about sums it up.
I travel with some pretty serious legal types.
Sitting just past the Tecate station waiting for our other guys to cross over a white BP rig pulls right up next to me and the guy gives me the long evil eye.
I started to sort of wave him off, my traveling compadre says, "Our rights are basically suspended in this border zone, just let it pass"

bajatrailrider - 2-20-2017 at 10:15 AM

As far as pass word to your phone it takes 2 seconds .For them to figure that out as I was shown to me by a 15year old. The fastest way across border give then your phone.Dont make hassle your on your way. Not that I like it but that's how it is,if they want to they can keep you there many hours. Less hours if you give in.

Cliffy - 2-20-2017 at 10:16 AM

One big point is missing-
Who gets asked to search their phone?
They are not searching every phone coming across the border. There's got to be some indicators for them to suspect there is a problem with an individual before they are going to take the time and effort to do it.

I'm not a a target so I'm not worried about it but the commentary about the rules being different at the border is true. CBP does have powers broader than local police in some arenas. Upheld by the Supreme Court.

The local police need a search warrant to dig into your phone, IOW, have to show cause to invade your privacy, the CBP does not have to go to court first.

Like I said, I don't worry about it because I have no issues they would be interested in. Now, could I be picked at random, yup, just like going to secondary at random.

gnukid - 2-20-2017 at 11:08 AM

Obviously BP can ask to search your computer or phone and you can say yes or no. Here are US court decisions supporting the requirement for warrant to search phones and computers during border crossing including pf foreigners. Many more cases exist supporting the requirement of warrant signed by judge based on evidence of reasonable suspicion.

U.S. v. Saboonchi
Riley v. United States

http://www.zdnet.com/article/border-laptop-search-unreasonab...

https://thinkprogress.org/judge-sets-limits-on-invasive-sear...

The problem is not good people, the problem is there are bad people some of them work in border patrol and could plant evidence or lie and they do it all the time.

http://bordercorruption.apps.cironline.org

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/august/s...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-border...

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-border-pa...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/study-finds-corru...

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/mexico-cartels-us-...

[Edited on 2-20-2017 by gnukid]

Cliffy - 2-20-2017 at 12:46 PM

The warrant requirement was narrowly defined because they cloned the drive and then "searched" it days later and 150 miles from the border. Thus, not being a border search in the immediate time frame. Also. if read carefully, it didn't dispute what was found it only disputed the way it was found. The subject did raise flags so he was looked at.

They still have the authority to search a device. Nothing in the cited case disputes what I wrote. If you're not doing something that raises a flag you won't get searched. I cross the border quite often and have never had a problem but then again I don't have a background that anyone would want to investigate. I'm basically a dull person to investigate.

bajaguy - 2-20-2017 at 01:00 PM

This post is fear mongering at it's best....or worst

If they want your electronic device at the border, they will get it

JoeJustJoe - 2-20-2017 at 01:10 PM

I would take any advice on this thread with a grain of salt, or do what I always do on "Baja Nomad" and that's to the opposite of what the crowd is saying on just about any issue. And this goes my my posts here too, because on this issue, the laws, polices, and court room rulings are fluid and are always changing.

On top of this we have a new Presidential administration that wants to bring gestapo aggressive tactics to border searches, and DHS Secretary John Kelly, has already put out memos, he wants Americans at the border to give up cell phones and passwords, so his jackbooted thugs could look through your smart phone, and possibly your photos in the cloud. It's not only Trump's fault, because under Obama, 4000, to 6000 Americans had their cell phones searched according to different sources/articles.

Yes, there has been a few favorable court rulings the last couple of years that favored Americans, against these unreasonable phone or computer searches, but the searches are still going on. WTF!

The law is clear away from the border, and cops need probably cause to search your cell phone. Of course, they usually get around this by simply asking you permission to search your phone. The same thing at the border. All this tough talk, when you know if a custom agent, asks to search your phone, 99% of the people are going to comply.

However, at the border, the law if different, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's policy position is pretty much that you have little to almost no constitutional rights at the border, and they claim they are just protecting the USA against possible foreign threats. Their written policy hasn't really changed since 2009, despite any new court rulings.

The jackbooted thugs, supposedly, aren't supposed to stop random people at the border, and then ask to see your cell phone, so they could search it. But the bar is so low, it might as well be a random search. They can search your phone, using the lower threshold of anywhere between "reasonable suspicion" to probably cause. Reasonable suspicion, could be such things as you looked at the agent the wrong way, or you fit his personal profile of a pervert who might have porn on his phone, for example, you're white, round, and just don't look like the average typical tourist. ( of course it's against the law to racially profile, but you know they do it anyway)

The jackbooted thugs, are going to ask to search your phone, and probably everybody here will comply. If not, they could detain you, and take away your phone, especially under this Trump administration going forward.

Good luck, citing your civil rights, and a few recent court cases, because the DHS works around those new rulings, with things like the 4th amendment exceptions/loopholes, and other things they make up like typical corrupt cops or feds.

Again, do not trust any information on this thread, unless it's backed up by current information in 2017, with a link to credible information.

Even our US Senators aren't sure what's going on with border cell phone searches with the new administration. Thank GOD, for liberal Senators, and the ACLU, who fights these violations to our Constitutional rights, but it often takes years to get a favorable ruling in the courts.
______________________________________

First on CNN: Senator seeks answers on border cell phone searches

Can the government demand you unlock your phone at the airport? A senior Senate Democrat is demanding the Department of Homeland Security explain reports that it's doing just that.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and privacy hawk, is set to send a letter to DHS Secretary John Kelly calling reports that Americans were required to unlock their smartphones "deeply troubling," asking what legal authority allows for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/border-search-cell-ph...

[Edited on 2-20-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

AKgringo - 2-20-2017 at 01:28 PM

If they want to search my Android phone, it will be without my help! I am not a rebel, just clueless, I don't use any data.

Seriously, I would not even have it, except my ten year old Motorola flip phone is no longer supported!

Do you think they would have a little time to show me how to access all the stuff they want to search?

DaliDali - 2-20-2017 at 01:30 PM

Obviously BP can ask to search your computer or phone and you can say yes or no. Here are US court decisions supporting the requirement for warrant to search phones and computers during border crossing including pf foreigners. Many more cases exist supporting the requirement of warrant signed by judge based on evidence of reasonable suspicion.

U.S. v. Saboonchi
Riley v. United States

http://www.zdnet.com/article/border-laptop-search-unreasonab...

https://thinkprogress.org/judge-sets-limits-on-invasive-sear...

The problem is not good people, the problem is there are bad people some of them work in border patrol and could plant evidence or lie and they do it all the time.

http://bordercorruption.apps.cironline.org

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/august/s...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-border...

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-border-pa...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/study-finds-corru...

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/mexico-cartels-us-...

[Edited on 2-20-2017 by gnukid]

Unless there is recent a legal case that overturns the Supremes decision.....this statement should be a clue to anyone asking.

"The Supreme Court decisions have upheld the doctrine that CBP's search authority is unique and does not violate the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Quote taken directly from the CBP website dot gov that has been previously posted.

6 of your links are about corruption and zero to do with legality of CBP search authority.

Anarchists love it...if one is so inclined like dandelion chomping goats.

gnukid - 2-20-2017 at 02:12 PM

The first four references are to court cases that upheld the requirement for warrant for search at border crossings, the second set are examples of border corruption including FBI articles which identify systemic corruption in border patrol and example how and why.

Clearly it is not hard to see that there is a desire to promote the idea that the constitution does not apply within 100 miles of the border, however, that type of lawless approach has been repeatedly denied in court.

If I work for a private company who does not want their intellectual property for technology shard I have a duty to not share that information whether I am being lied to or threatened by BP.

There is no problem with saying no you can not search my phone or computer and let the process proceed. IF they have a right to search they can easily get a warrant if they do not have reasonable suspicion they will drop the issue.

It's not complicated. What is complicated or problematic are people who will throw away their basic rights that both countries USA and Mexico have written into the law because of the proposal that if you give up your rights you are helping your country to be secure, which could not be more false.

It is the responsibility of each citizen and those who swear to protect the law to uphold the law or our countries will become completely lawless, which seems to the desired trend by some nomads.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

JoeJustJoe - 2-20-2017 at 04:15 PM

Big Brother is here, and resistance is futile.

Who is really going to stand up to the jack booted thugs, also known as U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP) when they want your cell phone to search? Oh you could try to put up a fight, but is it really worth the effort, seeing what they could put you through, like denying your entry into the US, if you're a foreigner, or detaining you, and taking away your electronic toys if you're an American.

Who are you going to complain to?

The DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties? Now that's funny.

The "Electronics Frontier Foundation," usually has up to date information on this subject, here is one of their articles, about DHS, secretary, John Kelly, wanting to crack down on foreigners, and even Americans. He wants those phones and passwords.
________________________________

Border Security Overreach Continues: DHS Wants Social Media Login Information

Now more than ever, it is apparent that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are embarking on a broad campaign to invade the digital lives of innocent individuals.

The new DHS secretary, John Kelly, told a congressional committee this week that the department may soon demand login information (usernames and passwords) for social media accounts from foreign visa applicants—at least those subject to the controversial executive order on terrorism and immigration—and those who don’t comply will be denied entry into the United States. This effort to access both public and private communications and associations is the latest move by a department that is overreaching its border security authority.

read the rest here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/border-security-overre...

[Edited on 2-20-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

DaliDali - 2-20-2017 at 04:17 PM

The first four references are to court cases that upheld the requirement for warrant for search at border crossings, the second set are examples of border corruption including FBI articles which identify systemic corruption in border patrol and example how and why.

Clearly it is not hard to see that there is a desire to promote the idea that the constitution does not apply within 100 miles of the border, however, that type of lawless approach has been repeatedly denied in court.

If I work for a private company who does not want their intellectual property for technology shard I have a duty to not share that information whether I am being lied to or threatened by BP.

There is no problem with saying no you can not search my phone or computer and let the process proceed. IF they have a right to search they can easily get a warrant if they do not have reasonable suspicion they will drop the issue.

It's not complicated. What is complicated or problematic are people who will throw away their basic rights that both countries USA and Mexico have written into the law because of the proposal that if you give up your rights you are helping your country to be secure, which could not be more false.

It is the responsibility of each citizen and those who swear to protect the law to uphold the law or our countries will become completely lawless, which seems to the desired trend by some nomads.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Of course you, or anyone for that matter, have the absolute right to say no to any and all obstacles that may present themselves to you......however, as with most things in the life, there are consequences to your actions.

At the border, one of the consequences of saying no to a CBP agent, when asked to present your personal goods for inspection, is to lose your right to free movements, every aspect of your person and goods within your control to move freely and the Supreme court has upheld that decision that the right to unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.

People may or may not like it but that lawful exercise of searching electronic devices exists for a reason.
I don't know real numbers on the amount of people who have their electronic devices searched ,but just a wild guess, I suspect very very few.

If you or anyone presents yourself to the CBP agents as if carrying a chip on your shoulder and coming across as obnoxious and argumentative "I know my rights" sort.....that may trigger a reasonable suspicion of attempting to conceal something. You may know how that goes from then on.

Several years ago, I flew into LAX from Bangkok, Thailand after playing tourist.
Yes I spent some time with prostitutes and had the time of my life for a single man.
CBP at LAX sent me to secondary, went thru my bags, asked me to open my camera and turn on my laptop.....which I did willingly and without getting all pumped up. I had nothing to hide.
They were looking for images of underage girls who I might have come into contact with. I fit the profile of a pedofile sex tourist.
Sure enough I had sex with some very slinky, raven haired beauties, but zero of insufficient legal age. Search away.

If ONE laptop or ONE phone search by border agents unveils serious criminal activities....I fully support their duties.

Your second to the last sentence could not be any more wrong.
For the 3rd or 4th time......it is NOW current legal law, upheld by the Supremes that the 4th amendment does NOT apply in the border region.
Until that law is reversed by these same Supremes, it IS the law of the land and your duty, along with every other citizen, to obey, like it or not.

Superior court judges, State Supreme court judges, Federal circuit court judges or panels of judges, Federal appeals court judges or panel of judges CANNOT overturn the US Supreme court decisions. ONLY the SCOTUS can reverse their own decisions.

motoged - 2-20-2017 at 05:46 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajatrailrider

As far as pass word to your phone it takes 2 seconds .For them to figure that out as I was shown to me by a 15year old.....

Well, I have more than 2 seconds.....care to let us all know how to do that? :?:

bajatrailrider - 2-20-2017 at 06:33 PM

Quote: Originally posted by motoged

Quote: Originally posted by bajatrailrider

As far as pass word to your phone it takes 2 seconds .For them to figure that out as I was shown to me by a 15year old.....

Well, I have more than 2 seconds.....care to let us all know how to do that? :?:

If I go dirt bike riding with you then more then happy to show you. I cant post it because then my wife will use all my minuets. I forgot the pass word to my new Smart phone. The Kid I know young boy Mexican. Took 2 seconds its so easy. So much for smart phones.

gnukid - 2-20-2017 at 07:50 PM

The topic is computer and phone warrantless search at the border

I suppose this topic is relevant and it's informative that people may be giving this some thought today. Apparently DHS head John Kelly will be talking with the Senate about this topic as well, since border patrol lawlessness is "deeply troubling." Apparently the number of warrantless searches are few ~5000 a year and very few reveal criminal activity and therefore there are few court cases that are decided on the topic so expect more clarifying information forthcoming from DHS head John Kelly in senate discussion and upcoming federal cases.

Senator Ron Wyden's Letter to DHS head John Kelly today 2/20/17
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/letter-to-dhs-re-borde...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/border-search-cell-ph...

https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/wyden-letter-dhs-passwords...

The BP claims there is a 100 mile exclusion from the constitution at any border which would therefore include all coast lines as well, a vast majority of the country is constitution free for them, or in other words lawless the country is lawless for border patrol and LE. More than 200 million citizens of the population are affected by the fuzzy border lawless constitution free interpretation.

The legal issue being argued is that computers and phones at the border are connected to cloud services not at the border (more than 100 miles) and not in the constitution exclusion zone, therefore, the BP warrantless search doesn't apply to suspicionless travelers even if border warrantless search was legal, but is not legal anyway since you can't grant a constitutional exclusion under such broad terms without an established need or requirement.

While it is clear that BP and LE say that the laws do not apply to them it doesn't make it so. Many cases exist in federal court, some of which are noted previously, more below, or anyone can do a search on the topic, and discover the number of cases where courts have ruled BP warrantless search interpretation is unlawful and presents concern since "constitution free zone" across the 100 mile border zone affects vast majority of populated centers affecting 200 million citizens as well as millions of foreign travelers while the number of crimes discovered by BP warrantless search is very very small.

Imagine yourself at the border, and a BP says you have to give me all your passwords because I said so. What if you didn't feel safe or secure doing so because of the fact that BP has a history of systemic corruption and so you decided to say no, what will happen? They would squirm and threaten you but eventually they would let you pass and they would give your devices back because of the lack of reasonable suspicion and they would acknowledge the risk to them for the cost of the lawsuit and damages.

Dali's anecdote is interesting, for example, you setup your story as though you were under reasonable suspicion of a crime and are open about stating that as you were involved in activity that has a high probability of being illegal namely prostitution in an area known for underage prostitution often associated with human trafficking and therefore you gave up the right to be free from unreasonable search of your computer and phone, however, that doesn't apply to everyone or anyone for that matter except those that are involved in reasonably suspicious activity and admit it like you did which by the way is suspiciously weird way to phrase your argument?

Here's my anecdote, I was in a large city in the USA, I noticed the Police Chief breaking into vehicles in the parking lot of a social club, I called witnesses. We waited and watched until I saw him break into my vehicle. Afterward I confronted him and his crew and threatened me and he said he didn't have to follow the law because of the 100 mile constitution exclusion zone for 4th and 5th amendment. He eventually backed down as a crowd gathered.

I learned more about this by pursuing a case against him. The lawyers argued I suffered no damages from him breaking into my car and he had to do it for my security to look for bombs-every cell phone charger could be a bomb so he can break into any car he wants. Perhaps I didn't suffer badly so I dropped it. BP and LE can say the law doesn't apply to them, but that doesn't make it so, while in fact the people who are taking DHS to court and winning cases are winning big time $.

It depends what type of world you want to live in, a slippery lawless world where LE and BP infringe on your basic rights and freely break in to cars and and demand your passwords to personal items for no reason, where BP and LE systemic corruption reigns and goes unpunished, or do you want to live in a world which respects individuals basic rights and holds LE and BP to the law we codified into our way of life, in order to protect good people from overbearing lawless abuses by government "for your own safety".

This dialogue is helpful to understand the dichotomy of opinion from Nomads, some of whom are pleased to give up every basic human right either because they are admittedly involved in suspicious behavior or because someone from the systemically corrupt BP said the law doesn't apply to them.

Giving up your basic rights "just because they said so" is idiotic, no one in the right mind would support a lawless LE or BP that doesn't respect basic human rights which is the very reason why courts often side against BP when they are sued for failing to get a warrant to search when cases are taken to court and they require costs and damages to be paid to individuals.

Here is more info - I'm not the author - these are references- do your own research on "warrantless search border patrol" or "border constitution free zone" apparently its very topical.

U.S. v. Gabriel
Sanchez et. al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol
United States v. Venzor-Castillo

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detai...

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/11/30/bo...

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2016/11/30/aclu-sues-border-patr...

[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]

mtgoat666 - 2-20-2017 at 08:09 PM

In these early days of trump authoritarianism, it is especially important to voice dissent about the police-state.
Stand up for your rights!

mtgoat666 - 2-20-2017 at 08:15 PM

Here's my anecdote, I was in a large city in the USA, I noticed the Police Chief breaking into vehicles in the parking lot of a social club, I called witnesses.

[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]

Sounds like a tall tale. If it was a "large city," then doubtful the popo chief would be in the field breaking windows.
Big city chiefs don't get their hands dirty with run of the mill auto-vandalism-harassment at social clubs, they tell their underlings to do dirty work.

gnukid - 2-20-2017 at 08:30 PM

The police chief used a slim jim, he was with Secret Service, some of the people at the party were heads of state. I still disagree he should break into cars in the parking lot but everyone is welcome to their opinion, the question is it legal and what are the limits. He was eventually removed from office. It was an anecdotal example...

DaliDali - 2-20-2017 at 08:53 PM

The topic is computer and phone warrantless search at the border

Imagine yourself at the border, and a BP says you have to give me all your passwords because I said so. What if you didn't feel safe or secure doing so because of the fact that BP has a history of systemic corruption and so you decided to say no, what will happen? They would squirm and threaten you but eventually they would let you pass and they would give your devices back because of the lack of reasonable suspicion and they would acknowledge the risk to them for the cost of the lawsuit and damages.

[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]

Have you personally seen or have been involved, as a suspect, the squirming and threats, then they let you go?

If you were a suspect, what was it that set the officers off that wanted to further exam you and or your possessions, including the phone?..

Do you routinely get directed to secondary? If you do, what is your assessment on why?

Out of XX number of times crossing, how many times have you been directed to secondary?
Out of the times you did go to secondary, how many times were you directed to hand over your phone with a password?
In your mind, what was it that got the officers involved with wanting to look into your phone?
Did you comply without fuss when officers in secondary wanted to look into your cooler, under the seats, in boxes, in a briefcase?
Was any contraband or other prohibited items confiscated?
Do you have a criminal record and or been convicted of a felony?
Is your name in any way publicly associated with various known anarchy groups or associations with anti government groups that advocate the overthrow of the government?

Do you believe that the US Supreme court decisions are settled law?
Do you believe that the US Supreme court can make decisions regarding the various elements of the 4th amendment?
Do you believe that you can disregard any US Supreme court decision you feel is not right?
Do you believe the US Supreme court has jurisdiction on matters of search and seizure at the border?
Should CBP officials ignore the decision from the US Supreme court in matters of search and seizure without warrants or probable cause in the border area?
Should you, as a matter of your rights, ignore decisions that you feel are wrong?
Do you believe that only the US Supreme court can reverse their decisions and not some lower court?
Do you approve of allowing in criminals, felons, miscreants, undesirables, drug smugglers, people smugglers and possible terrorists from outside of Latin America into the USA?
If you do not, what methods of enforcement would should the CBP be allowed to thwart those attempted entries?
Would you agree that examining a person's electronic devices is one of many tools the CPB uses to interdict crime, criminals and other undesirable and prohibited persons from entering any POE?

On edit, you do understand that criminals, miscreants, smugglers and other nefarious people do not usually sport a black star on their forehead denoting their criminal ways or history don't you?

[Edited on 2-21-2017 by DaliDali]

motoged - 2-20-2017 at 09:02 PM

The topic is computer and phone warrantless search at the border......

[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]

Yeah, yeah......but all this is going in circles.....speaking of which....at this point I am far more interested in hearing more about Dalidali's Thai trip. :light:

As for the politics.....it's all in the toilet these days....

bajaguy - 2-20-2017 at 09:03 PM

Names and dates, plus references or it didn't happen

The police chief used a slim jim, he was with Secret Service, some of the people at the party were heads of state. I still disagree he should break into cars in the parking lot but everyone is welcome to their opinion, the question is it legal and what are the limits. He was eventually removed from office. It was an anecdotal example...

gnukid - 2-20-2017 at 09:23 PM

Lawlessness at the border by LE/BP is a topical issue that is so important a Senator wrote a letter today to DHS head and he is enacting discussion and legislation to stop warrantless search at the border BP.

Reducing criminal lawlessness whether by BP, LE or by individuals will make us safer. In case its not clear there is a connection between lawlessness at the border by BP, DHS, LE or military and criminal activity by gangs such as arms shipments such as Obama and Holders project to ship weapons to criminals and guns in mexico under rah fast an furious and gun walking programs.

You can not justify lawlessness by creating more lawlessness to fight lawlessness. There is a clear connection from systemic corruption at the border to crime issues we each experience anywhere we go.

I have seen LE and BP break the law and when confronted they will always back down, every time. The 100 mile constitution free zone, warrantless searches are highly problematic and a core component that promotes criminal activity both inside LE, BP and outside among gangs.

The "octopus" tentacles of crime extend from corrupt policing, to prisons, to drug trafficking, money laundering, arms dealing, etc. it's all connected. First step is to reduce opportunity for lawless criminal behavior wherever you see it and at the moment that starts at the border among DHS and their claim they are "constitution free" 100 miles from any border.

These are tough times for criminals whether under the guise of governmental corruption which is extensive or it's extensions to criminal gangs, technology allows us to both monitor and track criminals behavior and to demonstrate it in court and discuss it with clear evidence of the costs of lawlessness. Hundreds of millions of people do not need to give up their basic rights just so BP can be free from following the law that our country was founded on so they can catch a few people while systemic BP corruption runs rampant.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/draft-law-to-require-warrants-f...

[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]

mtgoat666 - 2-20-2017 at 09:44 PM

The GOP scare-mongers spend all day wanting to build walls and create a police-state to target foreigners.
But where is the danger? Where is the terrorist bogeyman they keep yapping about?
GOP should spend their time fixing what is killing Americans: automobiles, disease, obesity, guns.

gnukid - 2-20-2017 at 09:56 PM

Names and dates, plus references or it didn't happen

Just do a search on "Corrupt Police Chief Resigns" and you would find it, oops there are 1,450,000 results

Cliffy - 2-20-2017 at 10:40 PM

Ya that spoon in my sugar bowl makes me fat too.

willardguy - 2-20-2017 at 10:45 PM

The GOP scare-mongers spend all day wanting to build walls and create a police-state to target foreigners.
But where is the danger? Where is the terrorist bogeyman they keep yapping about?
GOP should spend their time fixing what is killing Americans: automobiles, disease, obesity, guns.

You forgot to add: Liberal lunatics (who want a massive government to control every aspect of our life but want to do nothing the government is actually obligated to do, namely protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. Read the U.S. constitution instead of Karl Marx).

....pauls liquor

BajaDreams - 2-21-2017 at 01:36 AM

Actually, "the border" exists for many miles into the US. Homeland Security could take pretty much every phone in almost all of Florida under the same pretense should they desire.

Most people have no reason to fear a phone search. You are always welcome to surrender your phone, or other electronic device. And CPB has the "right" to detain you I believe for up to 72 hours with no "cause".

So if you want to challenge CBP, by all means, go for it. you may give up a few days to do so, but hey, that's really not much.

Now all that said, if you carry crap on your electronic device you would not want your spouse or your kids to ever see or read, I suggest you carry a 2nd electronic device just for crossing the border. That way if they want to "read" it, there is nothing there to read. Of course there is the inconvenience of no save passwords, and you have to use a browser for mail instead of an app, and of course no photos. But if you store no passwrods, and clear your history, you have a "clean" phone.

Personally, I travel out of the country at least 2x/yr, sometimes up to 4x/yr. I have never been hassled one time by CPB. There is zero doubt in my mind that they ave a full profile on me, as they pretty much do on everyone nowadays. I'm just not of much use to search..

Now please don't misinterpret my remarks ot say I believe what they do is OK, as I do not. But there is really nothing I can do to change that.

If anything, people should be far more worried about the random "asset forfeiture" laws in the US, or the "indefinite detention" portion of the 2012 NDAA our last supposed constitutional lawyer signed into law.

I would take any advice on this thread with a grain of salt, or do what I always do on "Baja Nomad" and that's to the opposite of what the crowd is saying on just about any issue. And this goes my my posts here too, because on this issue, the laws, polices, and court room rulings are fluid and are always changing.

On top of this we have a new Presidential administration that wants to bring gestapo aggressive tactics to border searches, and DHS Secretary John Kelly, has already put out memos, he wants Americans at the border to give up cell phones and passwords, so his jackbooted thugs could look through your smart phone, and possibly your photos in the cloud. It's not only Trump's fault, because under Obama, 4000, to 6000 Americans had their cell phones searched according to different sources/articles.

Yes, there has been a few favorable court rulings the last couple of years that favored Americans, against these unreasonable phone or computer searches, but the searches are still going on. WTF!

The law is clear away from the border, and cops need probably cause to search your cell phone. Of course, they usually get around this by simply asking you permission to search your phone. The same thing at the border. All this tough talk, when you know if a custom agent, asks to search your phone, 99% of the people are going to comply.

However, at the border, the law if different, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's policy position is pretty much that you have little to almost no constitutional rights at the border, and they claim they are just protecting the USA against possible foreign threats. Their written policy hasn't really changed since 2009, despite any new court rulings.

The jackbooted thugs, supposedly, aren't supposed to stop random people at the border, and then ask to see your cell phone, so they could search it. But the bar is so low, it might as well be a random search. They can search your phone, using the lower threshold of anywhere between "reasonable suspicion" to probably cause. Reasonable suspicion, could be such things as you looked at the agent the wrong way, or you fit his personal profile of a pervert who might have porn on his phone, for example, you're white, round, and just don't look like the average typical tourist. ( of course it's against the law to racially profile, but you know they do it anyway)

The jackbooted thugs, are going to ask to search your phone, and probably everybody here will comply. If not, they could detain you, and take away your phone, especially under this Trump administration going forward.

Good luck, citing your civil rights, and a few recent court cases, because the DHS works around those new rulings, with things like the 4th amendment exceptions/loopholes, and other things they make up like typical corrupt cops or feds.

Again, do not trust any information on this thread, unless it's backed up by current information in 2017, with a link to credible information.

Even our US Senators aren't sure what's going on with border cell phone searches with the new administration. Thank GOD, for liberal Senators, and the ACLU, who fights these violations to our Constitutional rights, but it often takes years to get a favorable ruling in the courts.
______________________________________

First on CNN: Senator seeks answers on border cell phone searches

Can the government demand you unlock your phone at the airport? A senior Senate Democrat is demanding the Department of Homeland Security explain reports that it's doing just that.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and privacy hawk, is set to send a letter to DHS Secretary John Kelly calling reports that Americans were required to unlock their smartphones "deeply troubling," asking what legal authority allows for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/border-search-cell-ph...

[Edited on 2-20-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

mtgoat666 - 2-21-2017 at 06:03 AM

Quote: Originally posted by BajaDreams

Personally, I travel out of the country at least 2x/yr, sometimes up to 4x/yr. I have never been hassled one time

They don't hassle you pasty white folk. If you had brown skin and could speak a foreign language, CBP would be strip searching and water boarding you up to 4x/yr.

wilderone - 2-21-2017 at 08:47 AM

Do you believe that the US Supreme court decisions are settled law?
They are settled law as far as that particular case and it's particular arguments presented, until subsequent cases distinguish the rulings.

Do you believe that the US Supreme court can make decisions regarding the various elements of the 4th amendment?
Absolutely, based on the set of facts presented to be decided. This is their function.

Do you believe that you can disregard any US Supreme court decision you feel is not right?
You can try, but would be a fool's game.

Do you believe the US Supreme court has jurisdiction on matters of search and seizure at the border?
"Jurisdiction?" A US Supreme Court case headnote is not going to have any impact whatsoever on whatever is happening to you at the border.

Should CBP officials ignore the decision from the US Supreme court in matters of search and seizure without warrants or probable cause in the border area?
The CBP agents follow the law as it is on the books. They might get briefed on a regional policy matter based on a recent ruling, but individual human agents likely don't even know ongoing decisions made on the hundreds of cases affecting search and seizure.

Should you, as a matter of your rights, ignore decisions that you feel are wrong?
YOU don't know what "decisions" there are, and the set of facts that resulted in the decision, so give it up.

Do you believe that only the US Supreme court can reverse their decisions and not some lower court?
A US Supreme Court point of law in a case can be turned on its ear in subsequent cases, all of which will be sparked in cases from federal courts of appeal. It takes many years for other cases to develop to challenge existing case law and to be published, and it is ever evolving.

It's not difficult to do case law research and see which points of law within a particular case are on shaky ground. However, to know this is only going to help your attorney after you have been charged with a crime and are sitting before a judge to rule on your opposition motion.

Cliffy - 2-21-2017 at 08:59 AM

I know what's going to happen buy I'll ask anyway to see if anyone has a simple answer-

What does a border between countries signify? Does it have a purpose?And I'm speaking of any country in the world.

DaliDali - 2-21-2017 at 09:13 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone

agents likely don't even know ongoing decisions made on the hundreds of cases affecting search and seizure.

Should you, as a matter of your rights, ignore decisions that you feel are wrong?
YOU don't know what "decisions" there are, and the set of facts that resulted in the decision, so give it up.

Do you believe that only the US Supreme court can reverse their decisions and not some lower court?
A US Supreme Court point of law in a case can be turned on its ear in subsequent cases, all of which will be sparked in cases from federal courts of appeal. It takes many years for other cases to develop to challenge existing case law and to be published, and it is ever evolving.

Point #1."Likely going on"?....how do you know what the border agents know or don't know regarding their duties concerning search and seizure at the border?
You do know that these border agents get daily briefings as needed on their actions concerning search and seizure decisions at the border don't you?
Their current prerogative is what is allowed by law and the SCOTUS has ruled that they CAN search and seize as needed WITHOUT a warrant at the border.
There should be no dispute to this....it is FACT and supported by the SCOTUS decision.

Point #2.....ONLY the Supremes can turn a prior case on it's ear.
NO appeals court has the power to overturn or "turn on it's ear" a SCOTUS decided ruling.
A case may work it's way to the SCOTUS from a lower appeals court concerning border searches and ONLY after hearing that appeal to them, will the SCOTUS either let stand their prior ruling or "toss on it's ear" their prior ruling based on current evidence presented.

You HAVE to get it out your mind that lower courts can negate a ruling by the SCOTUS.....they CAN'T.
You HAVE to get it out of your mind that border agents are searching and seizing without legal authority to do it.

wilderone - 2-21-2017 at 09:56 AM

How many border agents are there? Do you believe that every one of these humans hear the same briefing? Learn in the same manner? Have the same experience on the job? Attitude? Do you think that any one of them actually goes to a law library and does their own legal research on a specific point or set of facts and then brings it to their day to day job? These are individual human beings - none the same. Some, as you know, are on the take and assisting criminals. We know about this because some of them get caught. Several terms with broad and specific legal connotations are brought forth here: detain, probable cause, search, seizure, warrant, no warrant. Each issue has hundreds of case law decisions that uphold the law and associated fact set, or reverses it or distinguishes it. Appellate courts have great weight on matters that there is no US Supreme court ruling on. US Supreme Court cases are never unpublished from the books, and even reversed decisions offer guidance and precedent. If a point of law is reversed, it is because a lower court case was evolved to a point where it was challenged, and if successful, then that case law will supersede existing case law. It is a federal issue, therefore, it goes through federal courts via federal appellate courts, a specific procedure. You can see how older case law changes with simple research, see the underlying courts, etc. I did it for 25 years and had two cases go to the Supreme Court. I haven't done recent research on the aforementioned issues - no need - I'm not a criminal. But I do know something about unlawful detainment and probable cause. I also try to do research about specific interests pertinent to my travel in Mexico - current statute - not case law - e.g, which coral is allowed to be brought across the border and which are protected. The law on duty on Mexican art (none). I have brought back a lot of contraband which agents clearly saw and did nothing (antiquities, dirt, plants, sand, wine, coral). If agents were untouchable, why would there be hundreds of court cases brought against them by plaintiffs for alleged unlawful search, seizure, detainment, etc. the border.

DaliDali - 2-21-2017 at 10:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone

How many border agents are there? Do you believe that every one of these humans hear the same briefing? Learn in the same manner? Have the same experience on the job? Attitude? Do you think that any one of them actually goes to a law library and does their own legal research on a specific point or set of facts and then brings it to their day to day job? These are individual human beings - none the same. Some, as you know, are on the take and assisting criminals. We know about this because some of them get caught. Several terms with broad and specific legal connotations are brought forth here: detain, probable cause, search, seizure, warrant, no warrant. Each issue has hundreds of case law decisions that uphold the law and associated fact set, or reverses it or distinguishes it. Appellate courts have great weight on matters that there is no US Supreme court ruling on. US Supreme Court cases are never unpublished from the books, and even reversed decisions offer guidance and precedent. If a point of law is reversed, it is because a lower court case was evolved to a point where it was challenged, and if successful, then that case law will supersede existing case law. It is a federal issue, therefore, it goes through federal courts via federal appellate courts, a specific procedure. You can see how older case law changes with simple research, see the underlying courts, etc. I did it for 25 years and had two cases go to the Supreme Court. I haven't done recent research on the aforementioned issues - no need - I'm not a criminal. But I do know something about unlawful detainment and probable cause. I also try to do research about specific interests pertinent to my travel in Mexico - current statute - not case law - e.g, which coral is allowed to be brought across the border and which are protected. The law on duty on Mexican art (none). I have brought back a lot of contraband which agents clearly saw and did nothing (antiquities, dirt, plants, sand, wine, coral). If agents were untouchable, why would there be hundreds of court cases brought against them by plaintiffs for alleged unlawful search, seizure, detainment, etc. the border.

This isn't about the virtue of each and every border agent.....it's about the legality of those agents to conduct warrantless searches on the border.

It would be extremely foolish to even think that those agents are not trained and get updates and briefings on court rulings that affect their daily interactions with border crossers.....is that reasonable?

While some Federal appeals court cases may make their way to the Supreme court for a ruling on the law, the law regarding search and seizure at the border without a warrant has already been ruled on.
A Federal appeals court judge, or panel of judges, upon hearing a challenge to that ruling, would rule against the plaintiff, as the law has previously been adjudicated by the Supremes and ruled legal as to the 4th amendment.
ONLY the Supremes can undo a previous decision made by them.

As you well know, those border agents have discretion on what they confiscate and what they don't.
It that item or items is prohibited, or a "duty" required, those agents are perfectly in their Supreme court decided ruling, to either charge that duty or outright confiscate the contraband without further ado and without a warrant or adhering to 4th amendment rights.
Just because one agent lets you though with 6 cartons of cigs, 4 cases of vino tinto and 42 limones, another agent will confiscate those items and or make you fork over custom duties.....and that agent who does confiscate your items, is perfectly within his duty to do so without further ado.

Someone commented earlier....YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS concerning unlawful search and seizure at the border.

One can file law suit after lawsuit on the legality of border agents to confiscate your goods, search your belongings, peer into your electronic devices without reasonable cause or without a warrant.
The Supreme court decision allowing this practice is a matter of public fact.

The level of reported corruption of border agents has ZERO to do with duties under the law, afforded them by a US Supreme court decision.

I am not going to explain this again.....I urge you or anyone to look up the Supreme ruling and draw your own conclusions as to the intent and legal authority border agents have.

Mexitron - 2-21-2017 at 10:59 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

I know what's going to happen buy I'll ask anyway to see if anyone has a simple answer-

What does a border between countries signify? Does it have a purpose?And I'm speaking of any country in the world.

Up until now a border likely represents at what point a prior administration or leader succeeded or failed in expanding or defending their territory, usually with war of some kind, with resource possession as the main motivator.

JoeJustJoe - 2-21-2017 at 11:00 AM

Actually, it's the conservatives who want to control every aspect of your personal private life, and are quick to take away your constitutional rights to privacy and will take away your rights to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The GOP conservatives are so bad, they even want to be able to peak in bedrooms, and see what kind of sex you're having so they can arrest you, see Lawrence v. Texas, and the overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law. The conservatives, want to control women's rights to abortions, and if they could deny her access to birth control, which was another court case settled many years ago, because liberals fought conservatives over this issue.

But conservatives do a great job, with laissez faire, polices for corporations they consider people, but the thing is these artificial persons, ( corporations) care nothing about it's employees, or the planet it pollutes.

Regarding this topic at the border, with searches, it's going to get worse under this ultra conservative administration, headed by John Kelly, head of DHS.

What people are missing here, is these cases are not really settled law, or rather the Supreme Court, hasn't ruled on the most recent electronic privacy lawsuits, and just let stand a lower court ruling from the 9th circuit, and other appeal boards. In other older cases, the Supreme Court, has ruled, and most of these cases are favorable to US Customs, to allow these warrantless searches at the border, and the US officials also take advantage of loopholes in the law, and 4th amendments exceptions. They also seem to interpret the law, as they see it, and wait for someone to challenge the law, usually the ACLU.

I'm somebody that stands up to cops on the street by citing my constitutional rights, when I think I'm being pulled over for nothing, but I wouldn't do it at the border with US Customs, because it could end up very badly for me, and who are you going to complain to?

Liberals - Don't Hold your Breath .......................

MrBillM - 2-21-2017 at 01:07 PM

Your Last Resort...............The Supreme Court..............is destined to take a HARD RIGHT.

While the coming nomination won't dramatically alter court decisions given that Scalia is being replaced, the inevitable NEXT vacancy sure to come up during the Reich WILL.

Regardless of whether the president during this term is Trump or (God Willing) Pence.

BTW, an interesting trivia question would be something I heard the other day on the 24/7 news.

How Many votes would it take to remove Trump from office ?

NINE.

BajaDreams - 2-21-2017 at 03:21 PM

Need I remind you the last POTUS is the one who actually DID take away all your rights under the 2012 NDAA "indefinite detention" provision?

Literally ALL of them. And when he signed the bill, he made it sound like he was doing so reluctantly, and then his admin went to court to fight the challenges to it.

People who believe this is some right/left righteousness fight are deluding themselves. Both parties have been part and parcel to the erosion of our rights for a very long time. Being a party hack or shill is a fool's game. Only fools think they win at it. the real winners are the ones with the money and power.

wessongroup - 2-21-2017 at 03:50 PM

"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."

This is true

bajaguy - 2-21-2017 at 04:30 PM

Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........

Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."

This is true

mtgoat666 - 2-21-2017 at 11:00 PM

Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........

Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."

This is true

The guys with guns and bullets are pawns controlled by those with money and power.
If you got money and power, you hire dumb cops and naive teenage soldiers to hold the guns and take the bullets.

Lobsterman - 2-22-2017 at 06:58 AM

What's the big deal with a border security agent wanting to look at your phone unless you have something to hide. They can search your car and belongings so why is this any different?

bajaguy - 2-22-2017 at 07:44 AM

We also hire idiots as college professors

Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........

Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."

This is true

The guys with guns and bullets are pawns controlled by those with money and power.
If you got money and power, you hire dumb cops and naive teenage soldiers to hold the guns and take the bullets.

mtgoat666 - 2-22-2017 at 08:33 AM

And Only an idiot would believe I am a college professor!

We also hire idiots as college professors

Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........

Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."

This is true

The guys with guns and bullets are pawns controlled by those with money and power.
If you got money and power, you hire dumb cops and naive teenage soldiers to hold the guns and take the bullets.

bajaguy - 2-22-2017 at 08:38 AM

Ummmm, don't think I mentioned anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits.........

And Only an idiot would believe I am a college professor!

We also hire idiots as college professors

Actually the ones with the guns and bullets...........

Mao Zedong wrote that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

"the real winners are the ones with the money and power."

This is true

The guys with guns and bullets are pawns controlled by those with money and power.
If you got money and power, you hire dumb cops and naive teenage soldiers to hold the guns and take the bullets.

wilderone - 2-28-2017 at 08:51 AM

"... border security agent wanting to look at your phone unless you have something to hide. They can search your car and belongings so why is this any different"

(i) Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee's person. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone's capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an element of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives." Riley v. United States 573 U.S. ___ (2014).

bajaguy - 2-28-2017 at 09:00 AM

Be sure you tell the CBP that when they ask........Let us know how it works out for you

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone

"

(i) Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee's person. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone's capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an element of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives." Riley v. United States 573 U.S. ___ (2014).

chuckie - 2-28-2017 at 10:09 AM

YUP! Lotsa keyboard courage here..as I said before..The HS guys will do what they want....

DaliDali - 2-28-2017 at 11:33 AM

Not only can they do what they want, those CBP agents have the full backing of the Supreme court to do what they do without a warrant or probable cause.

Some get severe constipation over this issue but it is what it is.

JoeJustJoe - 2-28-2017 at 12:14 PM

Not only can they do what they want, those CBP agents have the full backing of the Supreme court to do what they do without a warrant or probable cause.

Some get severe constipation over this issue but it is what it is.

Well, I agree the CPB pretty much do what they want, they still need reasonable suspicion to do the more invasive searches, which also includes those phone and computer searches.

The CPB also doesn't have the full backing of the Supreme court, as the last two important rulings from the lower courts, actually supported our privacy rights against their random searches of computers and cell phones. The Supreme court, refused to hear a few of these cases, so the last appeals court ruling stands.

There are also conflicting court rulings, loopholes in the law, and their own interpretations of the law, they use to ask for your passwords, and search your phones.

DaliDali, when those CBP agents treated you like a perverted sex tourist, just because you visited Thailand, you should have demanded more respect from them before you turned over your digital cameras or phone. You should have demanded a specific reason why they wanted to invade your privacy and look through your photos.

The mere fact you visited Thailand, probably doesn't give them probably cause or reasonable suspicion to search your electronic devices, unless there were other red flags you gave them.

mtgoat666 - 2-28-2017 at 12:22 PM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

chuckie - 2-28-2017 at 02:15 PM

Makes sense to me Goatley..Argue with a GS14 who transferred into HS from the post office to save his pension....

DaliDali - 2-28-2017 at 02:38 PM

DaliDali, when those CBP agents treated you like a perverted sex tourist, just because you visited Thailand, you should have demanded more respect from them before you turned over your digital cameras or phone. You should have demanded a specific reason why they wanted to invade your privacy and look through your photos.

The mere fact you visited Thailand, probably doesn't give them probably cause or reasonable suspicion to search your electronic devices, unless there were other red flags you gave them.

This is the difference between reasonable and rational people and those who espouse anarchy.
I didn't mind one iota that those international port of entry agents searched anything and everything I own, or had control of at that time.

I see it as them doing their jobs to prevent or interdict crime and criminals.
But since anarchists like you and a goat don't like it, I can feel your pain and I would invite you to feel as much pain as is physically possible, over a lifetime if necessary. Headaches, constipation, hives, night sweats...it's all good to vanish this pain you both feel.

I KNEW precisely why those airport agents detained me and searched my belongings.....it was totally unnecessary to to waste everyone's time and ask the stupid Q of why.
If those officers detect ONE pedofile, child pornography trafficker or child trafficker.....I am all in on that and if I have to relinquish my "rights", so be it. And it pains me to know that you don't feel the same.

In the end, my personal travels to various locations around the world are not your business are they? Kindly refrain from prying into those personal travels and my personal interactions with these agents on a public forum.

What is your business, is to determine if your going to continue to be active anarchist and openly defy a lawful order or directive from a law enforcement officer because you "know your rights"

And look below if you need to refresh your memory on the legality of border agents to do their search thing and "your rights" at an international border into the USA.
I would invite you and a goat to file a brief with the US Supreme court and make your case to overturn their ruling, rather than bloviating and bleating your hatred towards LE on any level, as a means to sway Baja affectionados opinions on the wonderment of anarchy.

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/176/~/cbp-searc...

And if the above is not clear to you and a goat, here is an expanded legal determination, with citations and rulings, that uphold a border agents legality to do what they do at the border.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

[Edited on 2-28-2017 by DaliDali]

JoeJustJoe - 2-28-2017 at 03:24 PM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

No doubt DaliDali would also be OK with a body cavity search to, by the CBP thugs at the border for any reason, and he wouldn't mind at all, if they told him to "spread em" because the CBP was acting on a random whim or thought he was cute.

I think most people would be outraged over body cavity searches, computer or phone searches, unless the CBP had reasonable legal grounds to make such searches.

One way the CPB jackbooted thugs, and even regular cops get away with unreasonable searches, is they simply ask you permission.

Take the Nancy Reagan's approach, and just tell them NO! Tell them they don't have your permission, but if they are following the letter of the law, you aren't going to stop them, but you want on record, you told them no to the searches.

I also wouldn't trust some self serving link from the CPB, and would instead look for links from the ACLU, and the Electronic Frontier, both groups are fighting for our privacy rights, and our rights from unnecessary searches and seizures, including the protection of our electronic devices from random snooping.

If you notice on the CBP link they cite old Supreme Court rulings, and they are still using the same outdated written policy since 2009. There have been other more recent federal court cases challenging the CBP written policy since 2009, when it comes to electronic devices.

[Edited on 2-28-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

DaliDali - 2-28-2017 at 04:18 PM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

Reality says you don't know what I would do or not do right?
No doubt?....does your exalted grand wizard anarchist leader give you such powers of insight and grand observation?

And frankly, it's none of your business......again.
Now you're moving into pure nonsense in making wild assumptions, none of which is based on facts and reality...but more of how an anarchist sees the world around him.

Regarding 2009 rulings concerning CBP activities at the border....would it be reasonably safe to assume that if any rulings or decisions that directly affect the legality of what those officers do, is posted up on an official dot gov website, be up to date and valid?....

Since 2009, those border officers are acting unilaterally and outside of legal authority.....and any recent rulings regarding their activities at the border, now make what they do outside the law and outside their legal authority. Are you sure this is the line you want a reasonable person to have faith in?

This is wildly beyond what a reasonable person would assume.....but anarchists, by definition are not reasonable sorts are they?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Then you continue to pontificate the anarchists line without one iota of reference, citations, rulings and or any other means of proving a point, other than the word of anarchist Joe.

What would a reasonable person do to explore what the CBP agents can or cannot do?...the ACLU or an official dot gov website that defines, with citations and links to REAL US statutes?....
The ACLU can only make a "opinion" on what they "think" is the real deal and are not the arbiters of fact who issue genuine and binding decisions of the law.

I am finished with you Joe, and your pal Goat....
Have a great time trying to convince the members of this site that anarchy is the only way to achieve salvation and a better life.
Next time you pass into the USA from a foreign country, just tell those officers, no you wont, and inform us all how that works out for you.

JoeJustJoe - 2-28-2017 at 04:48 PM

I'm really too busy at work to go go digging for Federal court cases that challenge the CBP ability to do random searches on your phones and computers, but I know for sure the CBP written policy is out of date, and this is a very grey area of the law especially when it comes to searches at the border.

The CBP exploits the grey area of the law with their expanded phone and computer searches, which BTW is expected to get worse under the current US administration, especially if you're a foreigner.

But for sure, the CBP better at least have reasonable suspicion, before they ask to search your phone or computer, especially if they are demanding your passwords.

Here are some highlights from a senior staff attorney from the " Electronic Frontier Foundation, written in this article:
______________________-

Electronic media searches at border crossings raise worry

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation both say they have noticed an uptick in complaints about searches of digital devices by border agents.

The increase has become most noticeable in the last month, said Adam Schwartz, a senior staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"We are concerned that a bad practice that has existed under past presidents has gotten worse in quantity under the new president," Schwartz said.

The government says nothing has changed. Customs officials also say the perceived shift can be attributed to a jump in the number of electronic devices that people are carrying with them and shifting tactics as the agency adjusts to the amount and types of information that can be stored on today's devices.

WHAT SEARCH AUTHORITY DOES THE BORDER PROTECTION HAVE?

Americans have protection under the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable search and seizure.

A police officer, for example, must obtain a warrant from a judge before searching a suspect's phone.

But the U.S. border is a legal gray zone. Border agents have long had the right to search travelers' physical luggage without a warrant, and that interpretation has been expanded to include digital devices, ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said.

In 2013, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if agents want to do a forensic search they need to have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, he said. But the court stopped short of requiring agents to obtain a search warrant beforehand, he said.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-electronic-media-border.html#j...

Bubba - 2-28-2017 at 05:50 PM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

You do understand that Liberals did not "raise their voice", they didn't even "protest", they actually rioted, correct? You do understand that the people voted, correct? You do understand that we have a new Commander in Chief of the free world due to the people voting, correct? You do understand that you can leave the greatest nation in the world at any given time, correct? Last but not least, you do realize that we won't miss you, correct?

Lee - 2-28-2017 at 07:23 PM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

Meaningless drivel from the booty wipe supporter. Check your facts. Prez pu$$ygrabber won the electoral vote, lost the popular vote big time. Millions more voted for Clinton. I didn't vote.

Your commander in butt wipe is a bully and narcissist.

#NotMyPresident -- not now not ever; embarrassed to see him in the WH; ashamed to admit I'm a US citizen. I'm Canadian and Mexican until he's run out of office.

Millions understand what I'm writing. We will make your prez miserable and wish he'd stayed out of politics.

Was Prez Obama your commander in chief? Doubt it, bubbie. Save your bullshlt for the rural poor uneducated trash out there. Positive they think you're correct in your drivel.

mtgoat666 - 2-28-2017 at 07:28 PM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

I do understand that president pussy grabber is an abomination that will pass in no more than 4 years, and I do understand you are an a$$wipe :light:

Bubba - 3-3-2017 at 07:50 AM

Only sheeple stay quiet when faced with fascists. People should always raise their voice against injustice. Liberals know this. Sadly, Conservatives have forgotten.

I do understand that president pussy grabber is an abomination that will pass in no more than 4 years, and I do understand you are an a$$wipe :light:

Name calling is all you got skippy? Sit down, shut up and listen ok cupcake? We have a lot of work to do over the next 7 yrs 10 months, take notes and buckle up, we're going for a ride.

mjs - 3-3-2017 at 11:05 AM

#NotMyPresident -- not now not ever; embarrassed to see him in the WH; ashamed to admit I'm a US citizen. I'm Canadian and Mexican until he's run out of office.

This statement really bugs me.

You didn't have to have voted for him. You don't have to like him or his policies and administration. But if you are an American citizen, he IS your president. Good or bad (and I suspect this depends on someone's personal feelings :lol

, Trump won the electoral college vote and that makes him the President of all Americans.

Now if you really don't want him to be YOUR President then the US has an option for that. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html

So suck it up for the rest of his term and work to get somebody you like elected next time. Or work to get Trump re-elected if you like what he's doing a few years from now. But in the mean time we Americans all have the same POTUS.

/Rant off

[Edited on 3-3-2017 by mjs]

mtgoat666 - 3-3-2017 at 11:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mjs

#NotMyPresident -- not now not ever; embarrassed to see him in the WH; ashamed to admit I'm a US citizen. I'm Canadian and Mexican until he's run out of office.

We have 2 immediate options. First, dial up the pressure so fbi eventually reveals truth that trump committed treason and election fraud by colluding with russian govt. second, keep working on effort for california to secede.

[Edited on 3-3-2017 by mtgoat666]

Cliffy - 3-3-2017 at 12:06 PM

to support the charge.

My computer glitched so 2 posts to finish the thought pattern!

Cliffy - 3-3-2017 at 12:08 PM

Obviously I'm having computer issues > Back later when the ISP gets it handled.

There MUST be a THOUSAND Things .........

MrBillM - 3-3-2017 at 07:36 PM

That ANYONE could do which would have a greater likelihood of success than appearing SO foolish working at supporting CALEXIT.

Even (the fictional character) Don Quixote wasn't THAT Nutty.

mtgoat666 - 3-3-2017 at 09:25 PM

That ANYONE could do which would have a greater likelihood of success than appearing SO foolish working at supporting CALEXIT.

Even (the fictional character) Don Quixote wasn't THAT Nutty.

California pays way more in federal taxes than it gets in return (we pay $136 for every $100 we receive). California is the economic engine that carries all the lard butt red states. flock the red states! California will do great if we quit paying the bills for the backwards red neck states!

Calexit is right for California! The only people against it are the welfare-sucking red states like Arizona, Alabama, etc.

Cliffy - 3-3-2017 at 09:42 PM

Talk about being elitist and self-important! Egos that size fall eventually.

mtgoat666 - 3-3-2017 at 09:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy

Talk about being elitist and self-important! Egos that size fall eventually.

You sound like a red state welfare queen!

Bubba - 3-4-2017 at 02:41 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mjs

#NotMyPresident -- not now not ever; embarrassed to see him in the WH; ashamed to admit I'm a US citizen. I'm Canadian and Mexican until he's run out of office.

No, you're wrong again as usual. The two "immediate options" is for you to accept President Trump as your President or move your dead a$$ out of our great nation... Now, how hard is that to understand?

mtgoat666 - 3-4-2017 at 02:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mjs

#NotMyPresident -- not now not ever; embarrassed to see him in the WH; ashamed to admit I'm a US citizen. I'm Canadian and Mexican until he's run out of office.

After this mornings kooky twitter rant by trump (trump claims that he was wiretapped by Obama, because he read it on the internet), I suspect he will be removed from office on grounds of mental incompetency, within a few months,... probably removed by August.

So, our best option is to reject him, as the overwhelming majority consensus will shortly be rejection of trump.

Bubba, wise up! Your trump guy is a narcissistic, kooky, incompetent freak that wears orange makeup and wears the freakiest hair style - the hair and orange makeup should be enough to clue you in that he is totally off his rocker! Truth is stranger than fiction!

PAY ATTENTION

MrBillM - 3-4-2017 at 04:55 PM

The comment regarding the foolishness of those who "think" that CALEXIT is even a REMOTE possibility was not intended to address the economic (or other) merits of such a move.

Rather, the sheer Idiocy of of believing that it could actually be done.

Given that it would take a Constitutional Amendment.

Good Luck with THAT.

mtgoat666 - 3-4-2017 at 05:12 PM

The comment regarding the foolishness of those who "think" that CALEXIT is even a REMOTE possibility was not intended to address the economic (or other) merits of such a move.

Rather, the sheer Idiocy of of believing that it could actually be done.

Given that it would take a Constitutional Amendment.

Good Luck with THAT.

You assume that dissolutions of unions are peaceful affairs that follow established law. Bill, you are foolish, seceding from a union is never pretty. California has massive military equipment stockpile; after we californiaize the USA military inside our state border, our California army, navy and air guards will Reply to any any request we obtain a constitutional amendment from the country we divorce.

Bubba - 3-5-2017 at 10:37 AM

Are you drunk or just disillusioned mtgoat?

Lee - 3-5-2017 at 12:20 PM

Are you drunk or just disillusioned mtgoat?

The goat thinks out of the box -- refreshing!

If CA were to secede, I'd want to see NorCal secede from SoCal.

Hijacking this thread to the original OP: border security is last line of defense for the US. The agents work a very tough job -- we need them on the wall, we want them on the wall. They make the US a safer place.

Give them a break and not a hard time. Give with a smile and gratitude. I recognize the principle, however, joe, goat and the kid are bringing up. Best to pick and choose your battles in life. This shouldn't be one of them.

JoeJustJoe - 3-5-2017 at 12:30 PM

The Unconstitutional border searches of your electronic devices is expected to get worse with this current Trump administration, unless Russia-gate causes the impeachment of Trump, or he quits before being thrown out of office.

However, even if Trump is taken out, we are still stuck with Mike Pence, and DHS, head John Kelly, who runs the jack-booted thug operations, of CBP, and the heartless border patrol, who have been reported cruising local San Diego elementary schools, and stopping parents with questions about their immigration status, and in some cases, leaving crying children, while their parents are hauled way for being undocumented!

The CBP still uses their 2009 outed rules to get you to turn over your phones for random searches, but when the newer court rulings say the thugs, still need to have at the very least "reasonable suspicion" to search your cell phone, camera, or computer.

The sad part is "reasonable suspicion" could be just about anything, but I would still ask the thugs, why they want to search your phone.

But be very careful with the CBP thugs, because they have been known to beat people who question them or look at them in the wrong way, and transparency issues, and lawsuits against these Federal agencies aren't too good, compared to lawsuits against regular police departments that often result in large judgments against the police departments, while rarely the rogue cop faces any kind of prosecution.
______________________________

Border Security Overreach Continues: DHS Wants Social Media Login Information

A border agent examines a smartphone. Now more than ever, it is apparent that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are embarking on a broad campaign to invade the digital lives of innocent individuals.

The new DHS secretary, John Kelly, told a congressional committee this week that the department may soon demand login information (usernames and passwords) for social media accounts from foreign visa applicants—at least those subject to the controversial executive order on terrorism and immigration—and those who don’t comply will be denied entry into the United States. This effort to access both public and private communications and associations is the latest move by a department that is overreaching its border security authority.

In December 2016, DHS began asking another subset of foreign visitors, those from Visa Waiver Countries, for their social media handles. DHS defended itself by stating that not only would compliance be voluntary, the government only wanted to access publicly viewable social media posts: “If an applicant chooses to answer this question, DHS will have timely visibility of the publicly available information on those platforms, consistent with the privacy settings the applicant has set on the platforms.”

As we wrote last fall in comments to DHS, even seeking the ability to view the public social media posts of international travelers implicates the universal human rights of free speech and privacy, and—importantly—the comparable constitutional rights of their American associates. Our objections are still salient given that DHS may soon mandate access to both public and private social media content and contacts of another group of foreigners visitors.

Moreover, as a practical matter, such vetting is unlikely to weed out terrorists as they would surely scrub their social media accounts prior to seeking entry into the U.S.

Such border security overreach doesn’t stop there.

There have been several reports recently of CBP agents demanding access to social media information and digital devices of both American citizens and legal permanent residents. Most disturbing are the invasive searches of Americans’ cell phones, where CBP has been accessing social media apps that may reveal private posts and relationships, as well as emails, texts messages, browsing history, contact lists, photos—whatever is accessible via the phone.

Such border searches of Americans’ digital devices and cloud content are unconstitutional absent individualized suspicion, specifically, a probable cause warrant. In light of the DHS secretary’s statements this week, we fear that DHS may soon take the next step down this invasive path and demand the login information for American travelers’ online accounts so that the government can peruse private, highly personal information without relying on access to a mobile device.

These policies and practices of DHS/CBP must be chronicled and opposed.

read the rest here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/border-security-overre...

[Edited on 3-5-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

mtgoat666 - 3-5-2017 at 12:30 PM

Are you drunk or just disillusioned mtgoat?

After we secede, you'll Join the grumpuses and wrongheaded that we round up for re-education in the California people's work camps

Lee - 3-5-2017 at 01:48 PM

The Unconstitutional border searches of your electronic devices is expected to get worse with this current Trump administration, unless Russia-gate causes the impeachment of Trump, or he quits before being thrown out of office.

However, even if Trump is taken out, we are still stuck with Mike Pence, and DHS, head John Kelly, who runs the jack-booted thug operations, of CBP, and the heartless border patrol, who have been reported cruising local San Diego elementary schools, and stopping parents with questions about their immigration status, and in some cases, leaving crying children, while their parents are hauled way for being undocumented!

The CBP still uses their 2009 outed rules to get you to turn over your phones for random searches, but when the newer court rulings say the thugs, still need to have at the very least "reasonable suspicion" to search your cell phone, camera, or computer.

The sad part is "reasonable suspicion" could be just about anything, but I would still ask the thugs, why they want to search your phone.

But be very careful with the CBP thugs, because they have been known to beat people who question them or look at them in the wrong way, and transparency issues, and lawsuits against these Federal agencies aren't too good, compared to lawsuits against regular police departments that often result in large judgments against the police departments, while rarely the rogue cop faces any kind of prosecution.
______________________________

Border Security Overreach Continues: DHS Wants Social Media Login Information

A border agent examines a smartphone. Now more than ever, it is apparent that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are embarking on a broad campaign to invade the digital lives of innocent individuals.

The new DHS secretary, John Kelly, told a congressional committee this week that the department may soon demand login information (usernames and passwords) for social media accounts from foreign visa applicants—at least those subject to the controversial executive order on terrorism and immigration—and those who don’t comply will be denied entry into the United States. This effort to access both public and private communications and associations is the latest move by a department that is overreaching its border security authority.

In December 2016, DHS began asking another subset of foreign visitors, those from Visa Waiver Countries, for their social media handles. DHS defended itself by stating that not only would compliance be voluntary, the government only wanted to access publicly viewable social media posts: “If an applicant chooses to answer this question, DHS will have timely visibility of the publicly available information on those platforms, consistent with the privacy settings the applicant has set on the platforms.”

As we wrote last fall in comments to DHS, even seeking the ability to view the public social media posts of international travelers implicates the universal human rights of free speech and privacy, and—importantly—the comparable constitutional rights of their American associates. Our objections are still salient given that DHS may soon mandate access to both public and private social media content and contacts of another group of foreigners visitors.

Moreover, as a practical matter, such vetting is unlikely to weed out terrorists as they would surely scrub their social media accounts prior to seeking entry into the U.S.

Such border security overreach doesn’t stop there.

There have been several reports recently of CBP agents demanding access to social media information and digital devices of both American citizens and legal permanent residents. Most disturbing are the invasive searches of Americans’ cell phones, where CBP has been accessing social media apps that may reveal private posts and relationships, as well as emails, texts messages, browsing history, contact lists, photos—whatever is accessible via the phone.

Such border searches of Americans’ digital devices and cloud content are unconstitutional absent individualized suspicion, specifically, a probable cause warrant. In light of the DHS secretary’s statements this week, we fear that DHS may soon take the next step down this invasive path and demand the login information for American travelers’ online accounts so that the government can peruse private, highly personal information without relying on access to a mobile device.

These policies and practices of DHS/CBP must be chronicled and opposed.

read the rest here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/border-security-overre...

[Edited on 3-5-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

You must have had an encounter with the border folks. If you fit the profile, sorry to hear that.

I have no solution to the search/seize issues. Profiling isn't PC but it's done -- and the agents have wide authority as do most LE officers when they suspect something isn't right.

Think some want it both ways. Constitutional rights not trampled on, terrorists kept out of the US.

As for the undocumented being rounded up, there's no easy answer. Got one Joe? Ignore them? Amnesty?

Maybe one day there'll be an easy way to document all the millions in the US illegally. For now, they have to go. If anyone has a better solution, let's hear it.

(Think anyone born in the US from undocumented parents should have citizenship voided. Who's idea was that?)

JoeJustJoe - 3-5-2017 at 02:41 PM

Well, actually I have never had a very negative encounter with the border folks, except for the occasional rude CBP agent, but I have witnessed both Americans and foreigners treated very badly, and I follow many border issues with some of the DHS agents from beating immigrants to death in their custody, to border patrol agents using a disproportionately amount of force against a Mexican immigrant kid, allegedly throwing rocks, but the Mexican kids are sometimes shot in the back, and rarely if ever are border patrol agents brought to justice.

There is now a Supreme Court case where a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot and killed an unarmed Mexican national from across the US/Mexico border on Mexico's side, who was just hiding behind a column. The BP agent, shot the Mexican boy dead, and then the BP agent jumps on his bike and just leaves the kid to die.

The boys family is trying to sue for wrongful death, and DHS is fighting the lawsuit because the death didn't happen on US soil.

Here is the article about the case:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/515625917/supreme-court-to-dec...

I have more trouble with US street cops in the states, than either the FED, or Mexican cops, who also sometimes do random stops that are probably also Unconstitutional according to Mexico's Constitution.

According to some who study these issues, checking through cell phones, and looking thought social media profiles like Facebook, is unlikely to make us any safer, because real terrorists, are likely to scrub their social media accounts, and computer clean before they come over the border.

I'm surprised Lee, that you are calling for the deportation of 11 million undocumented Mexican aliens, and I'll quote you, " For now, they have to go."

Really? What do you have in mind, Holocaust or ethnic cleansing type trains running 24 hours day and night back to Mexico?

Sorry, that's a Trump, Trumpster's wet-dream, it will never happen, because even Mexicans have due process rights, and besides it would cost millions and millions of dollars. It would also leave work shortages in the US.

If Trump wants to deport Mexican undocumented workers, he should do what he said, and concentrate on those Mexicans that committed dangerous felonies, and not administrative crimes, like crossing the border without papers.

[Edited on 3-5-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

Lee - 3-5-2017 at 03:18 PM

I'm surprised Lee, that you are calling for the deportation of 11 million undocumented Mexican aliens, and I'll quote you, " For now, they have to go."

[Edited on 3-5-2017 by JoeJustJoe]

Really, I'm at a loss, as have been public officials, as to what to do. All I'm thinking is something has to be done. To me, amnesty (I guess) should be debated and looked at. Along with all the other ways to take care of this issue. I don't know how else to solve this problem.

If you have an idea Joe, let's read it. If you choose amnesty, I'll just think there are no other solutions available. I don't see real solutions bantered around. And realistically, you're probably right -- it's probably not possible to export that many undocumented people.

LancairDriver - 3-5-2017 at 03:36 PM