https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-08/if-a-border-agent-dem...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/25/traveler-who-refused-to-gi...
It seems to be mostly a Five Eyes thing.
Astonishing is the word.
Because of this, it's likely that the world will likely spiral to worse and worse treatment of everyone. As the saying goes, an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind.
If he went all the way up to the supreme court instead of taking the plea deal, the story might have gone the other way.
Well if CBSA continues with this practice I hope it ends up with a lawsuit and gets shut down by the supreme court.
This was 2005 so they didn't have such a hard-on for electronic devices back then. Seeing as the US has upped its game quite a bit since then, the likelihood of me ever visiting the US is now zero. Sorry my fellow US HN'rs.
And you know it's such a shame because I had a trip to Boston in November 2002, and even with it being only just over a year since 9/11, my passage through customs was friction-less and the staff were delighted that we'd come to visit the US. No fingerprints, no eyeball scanning, no interrogation, just a friendly "business or pleasure, and enjoy your stay".
It's not just 5 countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
https://wikitravel.org/en/Avoiding_a_transit_of_the_United_S...
But I think if you fly, for example, from New York to Paris and then on to Tunis, you don't have to go through immigration controls in Paris.
Not a bug, working as intended. Entering a country that you aren't a citizen of isn't some inalienable human right, especially if you're a convicted criminal.
Well, yeah, entering the US as a non-citizen is a privilege granted at the discretion of the US federal government. Border control is an essential function of a sovereign state.
>I also find it a bit disturbing how easily you apply law & order in the name of a country that was not involved in deciding the validity of that decision or the circumstances behind it.
It's disturbing to not want criminal elements freely entering your country? If they're a not refugee and they can't follow the law in their country of origin, why should any other country be obligated to let them in?
I'm only a criminal to someone like you.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen... https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/plea-bargaining-a-necessary-...
What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering. People that are well off would/do not have the same legal outcomes, and thus your measurement of law-abiding is not reasonable.
Well, yes. As far as immigration goes, the policy of most non-US western countries is primarily merit-based or if you have money to invest in the country. If you aren't educated and productive and you're not a legitimate refugee, why should a country let you in? How does the country benefit?
Canada has a generous welfare system and social safety net that that would likely be unsustainable if it let in sufficient number of people unable to support their own benefits. Even if you hold the view that drug use ought to be a public health matter and not a criminal matter, there's a limited amount of immigration that can be sustained without overburdening these services and why let in a drug user when you can let in a doctor or engineer?
In the case of tourism, it's just about limiting risk of someone overstaying their visa.
I make well into six figures as an engineer and cannot make legitimate business trips to Canada even when the company lawyer has appealed for my entry, complete with compiling a report with ample evidence of merit. It is a naive view to think that entry is merit based when I'm being denied entry based solely on the fact that I was once a teenager that was discovered to be around weed once.
> In the case of tourism, it's just about limiting risk of someone overstaying their visa.
Then why do so many performance artists have to cancel Canadian stops when they are not allowed entry? Are they really scared a platinum artist is going to become a drain on their society? That quite obviously has nothing to do with it.
Assuming by default that somebody would break the law, just because you politically disagree with them, is not justified. As said above, CC holders are among the most law-abiding citizens (this is true in my country too). They're aware of the laws governing their permit and assuming by default that they'd break other countries' laws is preposterous. You don't just forget that you're carrying when you travel abroad or by airplane. And you sure as hell don't do something as idiotic as that, with the accompanying consequences, intentionally.
As far as forgetting that you’re carrying, numerous examples say otherwise. Random data point: the TSA confiscated over 4,000 guns last year, of which I imagine approximately 100% were inadvertently packed by innocent people. Whether it’s intentional is immaterial; Canada doesn’t want guns crossing the border, and they couldn’t care less if you’re doing it by accident.
If the Canadian border authorities are searching your person, such that they are likely to notice something like a concealed carry permit, your border crossing has already gone south.
If your threat model doesn't include physical tampering/rootkits, just wipe your devices pre-travel and set it up when you get where you're going. If it does and you can afford to mitigate that risk, arrange to have cheap new devices at your destination and travel with nothing.
First password accesses clean files, second one accesses dummy [legal!] fetish porn collection ... do border guards hold you to get a third password?
An analogue analogue might be: I have a book full of "random alphanum text", I have two (or more) one-time pads for decryption of portions of the book, I also know the page/line the actual cyphertext starts at. The rest of the text in the book is random quotations encrypted using a selection of further random one-time pads. Can forensics find that there is a "hidden" n+1 plaintext when I give them the n pads and starting points? Seems impossible??
Also, sweating you out in holding is probably more effective than you realize.
If you are in a pinch.
If not you can just sell it (there or at home) and take the loss as a rental fee.
I have a feeling that is an empty set.
Plus, it doesn't matter if it happens as much or more in some backwater third world country.
It's already enough of a problem that among first world countries the US is quite a pain in the ass airport control.
Heck, it's enough of a problem that it feels like a pain in the ass. It wont be less of a problem if per capita e.g. Belgium or Albania are worse...
The government does what the government wants. If you're lucky, later a different part of the government will apologize.
A bill of rights may reduce the odds that those enumerated rights are denied to you, but it cannot prevent it.
So feeling fear when surrounded by 3 armed guards is "unamerican"?
My questions are why were there 3 in the first place, and why were they armed? Surely that kind of "show of force" could only be justified in response to a credible threat?
> Surely that kind of "show of force" could only be justified in response to a credible threat?
Justified, of course not, but have you ever encountered bored cops, or bullies? No matter where you go, there are always corrupt individuals, and unfortunately some of them are in positions of authority.
"They're"?
> It used to take months, weeks, or at least days.
Sure. Many things were different in the past. For example: hysterical and paranoid border patrol personnel didn't use to be the norm.
While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment.
So, opposing the second amendment is the only way to effectively oppose the rulings related to it (assuming that's what you want to oppose).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
> While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment.
The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.
Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context).
However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions.
Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.
Best to enter the customs zone with the phone powered off, your device's security is likely better in this state, less likely to be circumvented while you surrender it.
Things like mobile boarding passes and the "Mobile Passport" app encourage and train people to hand their devices over to TSA and CBP personnel. In that later case, unlocked and with an app CBP/DHS controls already installed (with a lengthy ToS no one ever reads).
As an aside, on iOS, the airline apps I have used work like the Wallet app and are visible on the lock-screen, the device must be powered on but remains locked when you display your boarding pass, etc.
1. There is no special app you need for mobile boarding passes. It has always been either a PDF or a PNG file emailed to you.
2. I was never asked to hand over my phone to TSA agents at any point. They just ask you to put your phone with the boarding pass QR code displayed over a QR scanner. At no point the phone leaves your hands.
Best to just wipe any device and restore from backup.
CBP do need reasonable suspicion to hold you belongings or do a forensic search of your computer (Cotterman 2013) - they can't just randomly take things on a whim. The longer they hold it, the higher standard required.
For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
A different way to phrase it might be: The officers and the suspects disagree about what a reasonable suspicion might entail. Given the incentives, I don't think this is surprising.
I'll admit, my point in no way addresses yours -- how often are officers adhering the the specific legal standard?
I'm really not sure how often officers violate the standard; it wouldn't shock me if it were frequent
But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence, and anything that's obtained from knowledge gained in that search ("fruit of the poisoned tree").
I trust that mechanism. And think it's likely better held in the US than literally any other country (v open to evidence to the contrary though)
Not if the violation was done in “good faith”:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl...
Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case, and has ruled that it is required.
Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?
So in some parts of the US, reasonable suspicion is required. In some parts, it isn't. In some parts, there is no binding precedent on the issue. It's likely that the supreme court will hear a case on the issue eventually.
(In Cotterman, it sounds like the Ninth Circuit said reasonable suspicion was required, but also decided on its own - despite it not being argued by the government - that an alert from a CBP database about Cotterman's previous conviction justified a search. Which seems reasonable to me, as a layperson, I thin.)
...and there you have it: He's done something wrong in the past, so - of course - he must be doing something bad now - forever and always!
I don't think that will discourage them to call any whim "reasonable suspicion".
What's the definition of "temporarily" in this case?
As a practical matter, more senior officials at CBP should hopefully know about their limitations and if you request counsel and stay silent then they'd likely release you.
I’ve been kicked out of a border control point in northern Vermont in February in a snowstorm after a four hour interrogation. (They sent the bus without me.)
I’ve been arrested and locked in a room for twelve hours with no food or water or medication.
I’ve been endlessly harassed and interrogated on other entries even when not exercising 5th amendment rights to silence.
In all cases they eventually let me go without charges.
They have to let you enter, but they don’t have to do it quickly or humanely.
They will use every option available to them to punish you for disobeying their commands to unlock, even if you are not legally obligated to do so.
Except the threat to put you on a "mess up with every time they fly" list.
Going to a prison somewhere in the US is 'reentry' I suppose.
Is there evidence of US citizens going to prison for the act of refusing to unlock a device at the border?
Hold shift or some other key combination when you boot and it boots into the 'real' machine, the other OS is just a dummy with generic search history and data.
Wonder if you can sue them after for your property back.
Legal / Official Source please.
Non-citizens are in a totally different boat. You can be denied entry for any reason whatsoever. Tread carefully....