Im not sure that matters. They may make it a condition of travel; you do not have to let the TSA search your phone, but you will not be allowed to proceed into the airport without doing so.

That is what all the TSA searches have appeared like to me. Just a denial of service for maintaining a level of privacy.

This kind of argument is starting to piss me off. "You can express your freedom of speech, but not in this public park, because it's privately owned" "You can state your opinions, but not on this website, because dispite being a major communications hub on the internet, and despite advertising ourselves as a place of free expression, we actively derank, ban or erase any opinion we dislike" "You can decline the EULA, you just have to stop using our vital service" "You can maintain your privacy, but not if you want to travel" "You can buy a phone that doesn't collect metadata about you, you just have to break a $50 billion dollar lobby and manufacture your own IC. You still have the freedom of choice"

You know what, you really don't. Your rights aren't supposed to be just a legal burden to circumvent with various tricks, they're supposed to hold in all domains of public life. I want to be able to fly in a plane without having some asshole dig through my personal life. You think someone is dangerous? Check for bombs. Check for weapons. Why are they checking for beliefs? What kind of bullshit is this?

Yeah. We accept that “if you don’t like it, you should just move” is a bad excuse for bad laws. But people still think they are so urbane and clever when they say “oh, if you don’t like (service X), just don’t use it.”

Unfortunately the same requirement isn't generally understood to hold in these circumstances.

For example, the 9th circuit court of appeals in U.S. vs Davis[1] held that airport searches are "administrative searches" and are permissible in much broader ways than searches while being arrested.

[1] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/04...

From the section [7] of the conclusion (your link, last page):

> The procedure is geared towards detection and deterrence of airborne terrorism [...] This was a limited search, confined in its intrusiveness (both in duration and scope) and in its attempt to discover weapons and explosives.³

> ³This would, perhaps, be a different case if there were improper motives established by the record below or argued in the briefs.

I'd like to know what "weapons and explosives" that might be useful for "airborne terrorism" the TSA thinks it might find buy searching the data on a laptop or phone.

I'm sure they would reply with some number of times that evidence of evil was found by a laptop search (in completely unrelated circumstances).

> the same requirement must also hold for Terry stops and simple safety inspections.

You must show your work here.

> Terry stops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

A narrow search for weapons is permitted without probable cause, if the officer has "specific and articulable facts" that someone "may be armed and presently dangerous". Terry stops can allow a pat down for weapons; an actual search outside the scope of the immediate safety of the officer still requires probable cause and a warrant as usual (where the Riley decision would apply).

I'd like to know what kind of weapons the TSA might be looking for if the consider someone with a laptop or phone "armed and presently dangerous".

> simple safety inspections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...

Briefly, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz allowed a brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (i.e. drunk driving), but only because it negligibly impacted 4th Amendment rights. Actual searches still required probable cause or arrest (Riley again), or the infamous "plain view" exception. Don't leave anything incriminating in "plain view" on your device's screen.