Note that border searches of electronic devices are extremely rare overall. There were some statistics from CBP implying a base rate lower than 1 in 10,000 (I think lower than 1 in 100,000) border crossings.

I do know two people who have experienced them as a result of the government taking a personal interest in them, so it's certainly not impossible. However, it's not a common experience.

I've personally experienced searches of my suitcases about four times in about 100 U.S. border crossings (as a U.S. citizen, but the people performing or directing those searches generally didn't know my citizenship status), and zero electronic device searches.

But why would that be legal? The device is owned by the individual. No judge signed any warrant search for the device. I can do what I want with my device - that is a basic right of property. Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.

Most constitutional rights are suspended within 100 miles of a border or international airport.

Which leaves me wondering - should domestic travel be treated the same as international when it comes to securing your devices?

Worse, almost the entire population of the USA lives within 100 miles of a border or international airport.

Because I was curious about this exact same question, I did some looking on this last night.

Case law on this seemingly requires some nexus to a border. In Almeida-Sanchez v US[0], a Mexican citizen was stopped while driving on an east-west road that was near the border but that didn't connect to the border. The marijuana that was found in his car was excluded because there was no proof he was actually crossing a border, just near it.

So I'd expect, under a functioning legal system, a warrant would be required to search your phone if you landed in JFK on a flight from Altoona.

[0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-6278

You are allowed to refuse access to your device, and they are allowed to refuse entry to the country.

> Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.

no need to imagine

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

> Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.

This jogged my memory, though I couldn't find the example I was thinking of. But here's an item that is pretty similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas_asset_forfeiture...

Edit: Not on the border, btw. Just people travelling inside US. I guess it was their mistake to carry cash instead of getting a bank check or something.

I'm European and I know plenty, albeit the minority of those I know that went to the US, so I wonder how reliable are CBP stats.

Maybe my anecdotal experience is influenced by me being in IT, but still.

I bet they are very reliable. Just look at the immigration hall of the average international US airport and you'll quickly realize that it is literally impossible for even a fraction of the people going through there to be physically searched. Of course this applies only to the average visitor and I'm sure you can significantly increase your changes by being the the "right" line of work - but from my experience and the people I know and work with, being in "IT" in general is not enough to get you searched.

It's also quite surprising that all socials need to be declared. And presumably them AI vetted in time for you to get to the border.

This part is pretty new. I wonder if my former colleagues have done any FOIA work looking into how travelers' disclosed social media accounts have been reviewed or analyzed!

You also have to provide every single email account you have used in the last ten years, all of them, forgetting to declare one is an offense.

There's no chances I can remember them all, especially as I've been contracting and get a new email every 3-4 months or so.

Or like me, I use disposable emails via simplelogin (?) and iCloud hide my email. I have hundreds. “Roflz” but I’m a citizen so guess I’m okay?

It's reasonable for a country to want to know if you're likely to abuse your visa.

Eg your socials might show you are a professional paid speaker at conferences. If you applied for a tourist visa that would be reasonable to flag you and ask you if you have paid gigs on the wrong visa.

Europe will also ask the same questions for foreigners. If you're a young woman travelling on your own you can expect questions to challenge if you might be earning money as a nanny on a visitor visa. Checking their phone messages to see if they've been making arrangements to this effect is a very straightforward way to determine intent.

Not everything is an evil conspiracy.

The problem is that giving the capability, initially for "reasonable uses", also makes it available for unreasonable uses. That's the banality of evil - dystopias are built one "reasonable" step at a time.

For the conference case much more reasonable would be to make the organizer and anyone profiting from the even liable for having speakers without a proper work permit.

You can solve these things sufficiently without reaching for the panopticon. As more of our lives are moved to the digital world its very important that we don't give up rights that we previously had in interactions that weren't assisted by technology.