News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by maximilianroos on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @12:01PM (#19564465)
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires articulable facts, not a whim. Courts regularly hold that officers didn't obtain it.

For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by everdrive on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @12:08PM (#19564531)
I agree -- and apologies, I might not have made my point very well.

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?

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by maximilianroos on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:20PM (#19565820)
For sure, I agree

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)

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by dragonwriter on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:28PM (#19565905)
> But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence

Not if the violation was done in “good faith”:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl...

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by maximilianroos on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @02:43PM (#19566032)
Yes, thanks for the reference