News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stop the Border Surveillance Bills by harryh on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @08:03AM (#15399853)
No. The 100 mile thing just means that you don't have to be exactly at the border and that if the search area is moved a bit for geographic convenience that's fine. You still have to have recently crossed a border to be searched.

There is no reason to be alarmist.

Re:Stop the Border Surveillance Bills by wan23 on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @04:29PM (#15404314)
Border Patrol also stops people in the 100 mile zone to inquire about their immigration status. You can be detained or searched in this way regardless of anything having to do with a border crossing.
Re:Stop the Border Surveillance Bills by Brotkrumen on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @01:49PM (#15402474)
Big difference between "not exactly at the border" and 100 miles away from it.

Also not very helpful that the search is illegal if you haven't crossed a border and have to get relief in court against a federal agency.

Re:Stop the Border Surveillance Bills by harryh on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @02:09PM (#15402738)
No one is being searched by border patrol who hasn't actually crossed a border. There's no need for anyone to get relief.

There is no reason to be alarmist.

Re:Stop the Border Surveillance Bills by Brotkrumen on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @03:10PM (#15403486)
>who hasn't actually crossed a border

You mean like ever in their lifes? If not, some people might disagree with you:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde...

Or you can claim that border patrol tracked these people for 75 miles and then held them up at the road block.