I don't believe any of the technical solutions mentioned in this thread; using a dumb phone, multiple identities and/or false data for plausible deniability, wiping the phone before passing the border, is viable for a larger number of people. They also fail once a border agent insists on accessing an email account for which they know you have the password.
The only protection is through protecting people legally. Once the border agencies can insist on accessing your email and cloud storage before letting you enter the country it seems like any arbitrary thought crime can deny you access.
"Sorry, sir, I use a password keeper and left the password file at home. I do not have any passwords with me."
That's not a lie, and I would love for them to explain to the judge if they did ever choose to detain you as to how this is not a valid and legal excuse and non-cooperation in any way.
And if you are in doubt about saying something like this, actually use a password keeper, it's a good security practice.
Further, do not bring any electronic device with you.
That's a different issue. When a court orders you to do something, then they would tell you to go back home and get the passwords or allow you the ability to do that. It's not reasonable for border security to expect you to carry your passwords with you at all time for all the services you use. It's a security risk to you, from third parties which might want to steal your data. Like for instance robbers that might force you to divulge your banking information at gun point.
What does "reasonable" have to do with CBP? They can detain you for a surprisingly long time or deport you (complete with banning you from further entry if you're not actually a US national) for failure to comply.
Except I don't have my phone. Why don't I have my phone? Because I don't want it to be stolen and I have no need for it where I am going. I want to unplug and relax, not be on call all the time.
CBP have deported US citizens in the past. 'Accidentally,' of course. Fun fact: if you are mistakenly placed in immigration detention, you're not automatically entitled to a hearing until 6 months have passed, so you'd better hope someone knows to file a habeas petition on your behalf.
In fact you're not automatically entitled to a hearing at all, but that was the working compromise established last time this ended up in court. Given the new administration's adversarial posture towards the judicial branch on the question of immigration reviewability, this is likely to change for the worse.
The US (and a large number of companies built around helping people emigrate to the US) puts a lot of effort into marketing, and frankly speaking, it's not a lot worse than most places people emigrate to the US from.
Nope. I was flagged for "secondary inspection" at the southern border. (Mind you, I am as white as you can get). Long story, short. I acted like a bit of an entitled jerk, and was surrounded by 15 CBP agents, had my head slammed on a metal table, cuffed, phone and wallet taken, and then I was taken to a windowless room (with a couple of older Hispanic guys who I remember thinking could be "disappeared" fairly easily without anyone knowing). I asked for my phone to make a call, but was denied. When I demanded rights, an agent told me that they didn't apply at the border and referred me to some Patriot Act notices on the wall. I felt powerless, and completely at their mercy. The agents told me that they would be searching my car without me authorizing it or being present (I remember thinking that they could plant something and notify CHP to pick me up a few miles up the road). After discussing things with the supervisor, I was let go but had my SENTRI pass revoked. Later, I contacted some lawyers who all advised that at the border, I didn't have the same rights, and that I had no case of any sort. Now, I am grateful it happened to me (because I stopped acting like an entitled asshole), but it left me feeling a whole lot less free, and it makes me feel more uncomfortable to travel internationally, which is a shame.
I'm sure the area where US laws apply can be discussed to greater lengths, but they're not applicable outside of the (geographical) US, regardless if you're a citizen or not.
Even if the subject of the action is an US citizen. (except for the taxation of non-resident citizens, which is a whole can of worms I'm sure)
This is for better or worse.
Extra-judicial killings happen a lot. In the case of self-defense for example. "Cop thought the suspect had a gun" is a mistake that happens often, but it can be legitimate as well.
I don't know why you think your constitutional rights disappear outside the geographic US. That is not the case. Constitutional rights protect citizens from our government regardless of their physical location. Indeed, geography was not a part of the Obama administration's justification.
As for your other point, self defense is a long established affirmative defense for murder, yes. However that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If the government has a case to kill a citizen, that case needs to be made in court and evaluated by a jury of peers.
By your logic, it's acceptable for the PM of Italy to order the assassination of an Italian-American dual citizen because that Italian has pledged allegiance to a foreign state that engages in violence?
If that dual citizen is actively engaging in such violence and Italy is a (potential) target of such violence, and his activities are happening outside Italy, yes.
> "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."
Frankly, despite initial campaign promises during his first campaign, hes been as bad or worse than the GWB administration in a number of ways. Why he got a pass on a lot of it is beyond me.
We get our information mainly from the media. They decide what the majority of the country knows and doesn't know, and who gets a pass and who doesn't, because most of us don't have the time or desire to obtain first-hand knowledge of what's going on in the world.
I didn't vote for President in the last election, because he became a clown with his antics and she (IMO) is a crook. I'm not partial to one side or the other: I hate all politicians equally.
I'd like to hear facts about what is happening in the new administration, but have had to stop listening to all media because it is so incredibly lopsided it's infuriating and only gets me agitated.
Whereas the media used to report primarily facts, it seems to me that now they primarily report opinions, speculations, and prophecies. We're not able to form our own opinions on issues based on facts, because we don't hear many facts, and the facts we do hear are definitely not in any kind of balance on the many sides of complex issues.
I have to agree, though I did vote, I voted libertarian (not that I really like Gary Johnson all that much either). I can't watch/read most "news" without at least half of it pissing me off in one way or another. On the one hand, I don't like Trump all that much. On the other, I don't like all the fluffed up reporting on crap that the past administration did too. Or at least the over-inflated sense of how it's so much worse now.
In general, I'd love to see us reduce our foreign military presence by 85%, and cut military spending by over 50%. Not counting other areas of the govt I'd love to see deep cuts into. End the war on drugs. End privatized prisons. The list goes on.
Sorry for the bit of a rant... I'm just kind of sick of it all, and that's only loosely following anything.
2-4 years is extremely optimistic, but I think this is an issue that (finally) has drawn more attention than usual, so there is a chance there will be some work towards its resolution.
IIRC if you are within 100 miles of the (actual) border or an international airport then are you considered to be entering/leaving the US and can be searched without a warrant.
In the linked ACLU post, the 2nd-5th bullets are a great example. The second bullet specifically enumerates the government position on border searches. The 4th and 5th bullets detail what the Border Patrol can do away from the immediate vicinity of the border.
But the 3rd bullet, which is key to the notion of the 100 mile "constitution free zone", is more mysterious. It states that Customs has "broad—though not limitless—powers" without detailing them.
Many readers of this ACLU post and coverage of it have come away with a false idea that Customs and Border Protection has some magic wand. The facts are very different.
Here are the referenced sections, forgive any formatting issues.
> - According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
> -Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
> -In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
> - Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
I don't understand your point. The fourth and fifth bullet points are intended precisely to make the third bullet point concrete.
Technically they should probably have been formatted as subbullets of the third point, but other than that I don't see anything wrong.
Also, your para "Many readers … The facts are very different." — not apparently backed up by any details — is exactly the kind of weasel wording you decry. In fact, I think I'm being trolled here.
It's the same. The contention is that unlocking the phone yourself does not require actually providing your PIN. You're only being required to provide your phone in an unlocked state.
Yup... there is even a case on this exact point. TLDR; drug smuggler crossed the board and went through customs. He didn't get searched. Then as he was leaving the customs area, on the U.S. side of customs, the police performed a warrant-less search. Prosecutor argued the search was legal because he was in the process of entering the country and citizens don't have a right against search upon entry to the U.S. The court said that the search would have been legal had they done the search before going through customs. But once he got through customs, the search was no longer legal as he had his 4th amendment protections at that point.
Are you sure about this? Usually you can be stopped and searched quite far inland as long as they can prove that you recently crossed the border. This is often used to take smugglers.
They need reasonable suspicion and a link to the crossing.
For example, if you were an American, white college kid crossing the Canadian border into New York at a weird time, and behave in a manner that seems nervous or evasive, You're going to attract interest. If you start heading toward the Mohawk Indian reservation, you're going to get stopped as odds are good you're smuggling something.
Believing in conspiracy theories is, ironically, a way of attributing more power to the state/elite than it actually has.
You're celebrating pathological thinking, especially when you claim that stocking up on ammo contributes to the functioning of a nation (in the loosest sense of "nation"). The days of militias are long gone.
Yes, which makes this especially abhorrent. The government insists the searches are only of "visitors."
Nobody has an obligation to refuse to comply (and be detained and/or jailed) but if put in this situation I would refuse. I'm not willingly giving up my rights without a court compelling me.
I don't believe any of the technical solutions mentioned in this thread; using a dumb phone, multiple identities and/or false data for plausible deniability, wiping the phone before passing the border, is viable for a larger number of people. They also fail once a border agent insists on accessing an email account for which they know you have the password.
The only protection is through protecting people legally. Once the border agencies can insist on accessing your email and cloud storage before letting you enter the country it seems like any arbitrary thought crime can deny you access.