Woman sues feds over data retention after iPhone seized at border

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 73
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,834member
    dipdog3 said:
    This is why everyone should carry 2 iPhones.

    Just hand them your old iPhone 5s with nothing but some random pics from your trip. Keep your new iPhone X in your carry-on bag.

    Better idea: Don’t take a phone with you. Use a burner phone or the phone of a friend in another country. Assume nothing is private outside the US... although the odds are high nothing inside the US is private also.
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 42 of 73
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,157member
    ronn said:
    dipdog3 said:
    This is why everyone should carry 2 iPhones.

    Just hand them your old iPhone 5s with nothing but some random pics from your trip. Keep your new iPhone X in your carry-on bag.

    You have to place all electronic devices in a separate bin to be screened. If you were to hide a phone in your carry-on and have it discovered, you've just given security a legitimate reason to conduct a more invasive search. Good luck with that.
    There is no screening on arrival unless Customs decides to pull you aside and search your bags. That's never happened to me. Even when you are departing the airport, you don't have to put your phone in a separate bin to be screened at the TSA checkpoint. I always put my phone in my backpack when I'm going through a TSA checkpoint.   
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 43 of 73
    GETCARTERcaGETCARTERca Posts: 8unconfirmed, member
    The way I look at it is ....... if you have something on your phone that you don't want others to see then get rid of it. For the simplicity when I go to the US next month I will simply do an iCloud backup of my phone the Erase/Wipe the phone and setup as a new phone and only have the minimal stuff on it. After I return home I'll just restore my phone to a state before I went south. 

    Keeps things clean and simple. 
    SpamSandwichsvanstrom
  • Reply 44 of 73
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 152member
    ireland said:
    As a reminder, this is not the place for your political manifesto. Err on the side of caution, and if you even think you're toeing up to the line, maybe read our commenting guidelines linked at the bottom of every page.
    So why mention her religion?
    What does her religion have anything to do with a political manifesto? Yet, somehow, here we are.

    This conversation is over.
    Mike, sorry but you thought it was relevant enough to cover in the story, why can't someone else comment on the fact that you mentioned it? You're being overly sensitive about "politicizing" things. 
    SpamSandwichronnStrangeDays
  • Reply 45 of 73
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 152member

    When will people learn not to keep naked photos?

    If people want to keep, take, send etc. nude pictures of themselves or their SOs that is their business.  It isn't an issue if you don't care that other people may accidentally see them.

    I agree, but...Ain't no "accidentally" about it.
  • Reply 46 of 73
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,338administrator
    farmboy said:
    ireland said:
    As a reminder, this is not the place for your political manifesto. Err on the side of caution, and if you even think you're toeing up to the line, maybe read our commenting guidelines linked at the bottom of every page.
    So why mention her religion?
    What does her religion have anything to do with a political manifesto? Yet, somehow, here we are.

    This conversation is over.
    Mike, sorry but you thought it was relevant enough to cover in the story, why can't someone else comment on the fact that you mentioned it? You're being overly sensitive about "politicizing" things. 
    This is a topic that I have been over the reasons why the policy exists at least a dozen times. The reasons for it are well documented.

    The person's sex and religion was mentioned because the facts are foundational to the rest of the story. Her nationality (American) was mentioned for the same reason. It is not an invitation to holler about one party or the other, which inevitably leads to violation of the commenting guidelines, or more time to moderate than is cost-effective. 

    I err on the side of leaving comments open, and have been loosening those restrictions since we clamped down on toxicity about 18 months ago. There are still clearly threads that need warnings, and this is one of them.

    I didn't delete Ireland's comment, because it wasn't outside the commenting guidelines.
    edited August 2018 Solisvanstrom
  • Reply 47 of 73
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 152member

    tallest skil said: If so, explain, because the USA isn't a communist nation, nor is it socialist.
    Read the communist manifesto, compare its stated goals to the changes to the US in the last 100 years, realize what I’m talking about. This isn’t the thread for it.

    Read it. Not applicable.
    SolironnStrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 48 of 73
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 152member
    Mike, sorry but you thought it was relevant enough to cover in the story, why can't someone else comment on the fact that you mentioned it? You're being overly sensitive about "politicizing" things. 
    This is a topic that I have been over the reasons why the policy exists at least a dozen times. The reasons for it are well documented.
    Well, you're missing the point of my comment. It was about the level of your Politicizer Threshhold, not that it exists--which I get.

    But, oddly, Skil keeps posting overtly political comments without your reaction. Thousands of posts earns a bye?
    SolironnStrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 49 of 73
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    farmboy said:
    But, oddly, Skil keeps posting overtly political comments without your reaction. Thousands of posts earns a bye?
    Not in this thread.  :p
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 50 of 73
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,399member
    The way I look at it is ....... if you have something on your phone that you don't want others to see then get rid of it. For the simplicity when I go to the US next month I will simply do an iCloud backup of my phone the Erase/Wipe the phone and setup as a new phone and only have the minimal stuff on it. After I return home I'll just restore my phone to a state before I went south. 

    Keeps things clean and simple. 
    They can actually view that with suspicion and refuse you entry into the country. There was a story about a Canadian to whom that happened.
    ronn
  • Reply 51 of 73
    jbilgihan said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    When the constitution was written there was no concept of good that was not physical.
    Are thoughts legally a “good”? And specifically, is “intellectual property” that is not yet written down considered a “thought”?
    ...anything not stored in a hole in your own backyard - you don't have an expectation of privacy...
    Even then you don’t have any expectation, because you don’t actually own the land. You can own your house, but not the land. Thanks, literally the communist manifesto, for subverting our government and getting that passed!
    Basically, the courts have not been faithful as to the intent of the constitution
    Gasp! A fact about the courts? Heresy!
    I highly doubt they meant for public use to allowing the government to take your property and give it to another private corporation as to increase the tax base (did they even have property taxes back then ... ) .  Public use is very simply - roads, infrastructure, public parks... not legalized theft.  
    Gotta thank Marx for that one, too.

    I can’t like AND informative your post, unfortunately.
    volcan said:
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos on their personal devices?
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos?
    If people want to keep, take, send etc. nude pictures of themselves or their SOs that is their business.  It isn't an issue if you don't care that other people may accidentally see them.
    Yeah not sure where those guys are coming from. If my partner and I like the way we look naked why wouldn’t we keep naked photos, and why wouldn’t they be on our personal devices? That’s why they’re called “personal”. 
    fastasleepjcs2305
  • Reply 52 of 73
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,581member
    The rule of thumb when travelling into the USA would be to wipe your phone before travelling.  Put basic data you require for the trip onto the phone but not your iCloud account etc so you can show them your phone info.  Get through customs/immigration and load up your iCloud account.
  • Reply 53 of 73
    bbh said:
    I hope she prevails. I don't think we are a "police state". Yet.
    The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement doesn't apply at the border. 
    Yes, there is a recognized border search exception to the warrant requirement. But whether forensic searches of smartphones fall within that exception is an open question. Federal circuits are split on whether some degree of individualized suspicion is required in order to justify forensic searches of smartphones at borders (or their functional equivalents). See, e.g., U.S. v Kolsuz (2018, Fourth Circuit), U.S. v Touset (2018, Eleventh Circuit).
    bkkcanuck
  • Reply 54 of 73
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,200member
    ireland said:
    As a reminder, this is not the place for your political manifesto. Err on the side of caution, and if you even think you're toeing up to the line, maybe read our commenting guidelines linked at the bottom of every page.
    So why mention her religion?
    Because religion was a part of the suit and thus relevant.

    Anyone who is worked up over the Snowden, the NSA, etc should be equally worked up about episodes like this. Border agents searching and seizing personal property without warrants, without just cause or reasonable suspicion is a far greater breach of constitutional rights.
    bkkcanuckSolironn
  • Reply 55 of 73
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,677member
    jbilgihan said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    When the constitution was written there was no concept of good that was not physical.
    Are thoughts legally a “good”? And specifically, is “intellectual property” that is not yet written down considered a “thought”?
    ...anything not stored in a hole in your own backyard - you don't have an expectation of privacy...
    Even then you don’t have any expectation, because you don’t actually own the land. You can own your house, but not the land. Thanks, literally the communist manifesto, for subverting our government and getting that passed!
    Basically, the courts have not been faithful as to the intent of the constitution
    Gasp! A fact about the courts? Heresy!
    I highly doubt they meant for public use to allowing the government to take your property and give it to another private corporation as to increase the tax base (did they even have property taxes back then ... ) .  Public use is very simply - roads, infrastructure, public parks... not legalized theft.  
    Gotta thank Marx for that one, too.

    I can’t like AND informative your post, unfortunately.
    volcan said:
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos on their personal devices?
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos?
    If people want to keep, take, send etc. nude pictures of themselves or their SOs that is their business.  It isn't an issue if you don't care that other people may accidentally see them.
    Yeah not sure where those guys are coming from. If my partner and I like the way we look naked why wouldn’t we keep naked photos, and why wouldn’t they be on our personal devices? That’s why they’re called “personal”. 
    The argument is kind of like having your bank account hacked and your money taken and then some numbnuts saying it's your fault for keeping money in your account.
    edited August 2018 bkkcanuckjcs2305
  • Reply 56 of 73
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,022member
    bkkcanuck said:
    lkrupp said:
    It is surprising that she didn’t sue Apple too for failing to protect her data. /s But let’s see her prove the government got into her iPhone. That will prove interesting.
    She should not "legally" have to prove it since the government should have to follow the law.  The case should at least get to the discovery phase (assuming the case is civil) in which the government should be required to answer that question (without perjuring).
    Don't worry... even if those photos get copied around to a dozen or so computers and backed up, the government will eventually lose them due to computer failure and incompetence (or, at least that appears to be the case based on FOIA requests I've made... no joke).
  • Reply 57 of 73
    ronnronn Posts: 315member
    cgWerks said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    lkrupp said:
    It is surprising that she didn’t sue Apple too for failing to protect her data. /s But let’s see her prove the government got into her iPhone. That will prove interesting.
    She should not "legally" have to prove it since the government should have to follow the law.  The case should at least get to the discovery phase (assuming the case is civil) in which the government should be required to answer that question (without perjuring).
    Don't worry... even if those photos get copied around to a dozen or so computers and backed up, the government will eventually lose them due to computer failure and incompetence (or, at least that appears to be the case based on FOIA requests I've made... no joke).
    That's what I was told for files for myself and my uncle. There's no record remaining. And no synopsis of what may be in the files and why they were opened. (Well I know why one was opened for myself; my uncle is a mystery) Odd.
  • Reply 58 of 73
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,022member
    ronn said:
    cgWerks said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    lkrupp said:
    It is surprising that she didn’t sue Apple too for failing to protect her data. /s But let’s see her prove the government got into her iPhone. That will prove interesting.
    She should not "legally" have to prove it since the government should have to follow the law.  The case should at least get to the discovery phase (assuming the case is civil) in which the government should be required to answer that question (without perjuring).
    Don't worry... even if those photos get copied around to a dozen or so computers and backed up, the government will eventually lose them due to computer failure and incompetence (or, at least that appears to be the case based on FOIA requests I've made... no joke).
    That's what I was told for files for myself and my uncle. There's no record remaining. And no synopsis of what may be in the files and why they were opened. (Well I know why one was opened for myself; my uncle is a mystery) Odd.
    I think convenient would be a better term than odd. I have a really hard time believing they are THAT incompetent.

    In the case of the info I (and a group of others far my dedicated than myself) were seeking, we know it was on at least 6 different computers in 4 completely separate locations (i.e.: different bases), and the consistent response was that due to computer crash/error the data was lost and there were no backups.

    I've worked with some pretty incompetent clients when it comes to technology... but you'd have to almost try to pull that off.
  • Reply 59 of 73
    ronnronn Posts: 315member
    cgWerks said:
    ronn said:
    cgWerks said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    lkrupp said:
    It is surprising that she didn’t sue Apple too for failing to protect her data. /s But let’s see her prove the government got into her iPhone. That will prove interesting.
    She should not "legally" have to prove it since the government should have to follow the law.  The case should at least get to the discovery phase (assuming the case is civil) in which the government should be required to answer that question (without perjuring).
    Don't worry... even if those photos get copied around to a dozen or so computers and backed up, the government will eventually lose them due to computer failure and incompetence (or, at least that appears to be the case based on FOIA requests I've made... no joke).
    That's what I was told for files for myself and my uncle. There's no record remaining. And no synopsis of what may be in the files and why they were opened. (Well I know why one was opened for myself; my uncle is a mystery) Odd.
    I think convenient would be a better term than odd. I have a really hard time believing they are THAT incompetent.

    In the case of the info I (and a group of others far my dedicated than myself) were seeking, we know it was on at least 6 different computers in 4 completely separate locations (i.e.: different bases), and the consistent response was that due to computer crash/error the data was lost and there were no backups.

    I've worked with some pretty incompetent clients when it comes to technology... but you'd have to almost try to pull that off.
    I don't have a doubt that they're lying and just don't want to release info. I have no interests in pursuing my file. But I'm pretty sure my uncle's would be pretty eye-opening. If a couple of his friends don't pursue it, I may once I have more time.
  • Reply 60 of 73
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,476member
    bbh said:
    I hope she prevails. I don't think we are a "police state". Yet.
    The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement doesn't apply at the border. 
    To that point boarder patrol is a government agency not police. Agencies are not subject to the same rules as police. They can pretty much do as they like. 
This discussion has been closed.