Woman sues feds over data retention after iPhone seized at border

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 73
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,504member
    maestro64 said:
    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. 
    So an American citizen re-entering the US at the border should instead apply for asylum from persecution by the US government?
    cgWerks
  • Reply 62 of 73
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,678member

    volcan said:
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos on their personal devices?
    Here is what I find interesting, I'm assuming she was devoutly muslin by her own omission, if she was why in the first place did she have images of her in various stages of undress this is not allowed in the Muslim faith. Sounds like some rules are allowed to be broken but not others.
  • Reply 63 of 73
    maestro64 said:

    volcan said:
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos on their personal devices?
    Here is what I find interesting, I'm assuming she was devoutly muslin by her own omission, if she was why in the first place did she have images of her in various stages of undress this is not allowed in the Muslim faith. Sounds like some rules are allowed to be broken but not others.
    So you are basically saying she is human... like Catholics and Protestants etc.   BTW, I don't think the Koran has anything about not being able to be seen in "various" states of undress (which could just be without covering her face depending on sect) - only unrelated men.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 64 of 73
    maestro64 said:
    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. 
    All agencies subjected to the same constitutional rules -- or they should be too.  Some of the intent and actions of what is enforced at the border is for the purposes of policing and not for customs enforcement...  
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 65 of 73
    ronnronn Posts: 336member
    Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
    [  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution  ]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    People are truly confused. The Fourth amendment applies everywhere in the United States. There are no exceptions. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times (wrongly in many legal scholars opinions) that fixed border searches without a warrant are reasonable, even without suspicion or probable cause.
  • Reply 66 of 73
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,314member
    ronn said:
    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.
    Yeah, that's my read on it too. Fortunately, in this situation, the issue got resolved via other means. But, the person who this info would have impacted had influence and connections. So, I think they just 'disappeared' the data.

    ronn said:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    People are truly confused. The Fourth amendment applies everywhere in the United States. There are no exceptions. The US Supreme Court has ruled several times (wrongly in many legal scholars opinions) that fixed border searches without a warrant are reasonable, even without suspicion or probable cause.
    But, aren't those kind of situations kind of a 'no man's land' even though they might be technically inside an airport on USA soil? I could be wrong there.

    maestro64 said:
    volcan said:
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos on their personal devices?
    Here is what I find interesting, I'm assuming she was devoutly muslin by her own omission, if she was why in the first place did she have images of her in various stages of undress this is not allowed in the Muslim faith. Sounds like some rules are allowed to be broken but not others.
    I'm not sure where anyone got the naked thing from. But, a devout Muslim woman doesn't have to be covered as such (afaik), when with family, as Bkkcanuck said. So, they might just have been family photos... like her playing with the kids, etc. She's claiming those shouldn't be seen by men who aren't her husband, etc.

    It would sure be nice if other religions got that much regard for their beliefs and practices in the USA, though.
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 67 of 73
    maestro64 said:

    volcan said:
    When will people learn not to keep naked photos on their personal devices?
    Here is what I find interesting, I'm assuming she was devoutly muslin by her own omission, if she was why in the first place did she have images of her in various stages of undress this is not allowed in the Muslim faith. Sounds like some rules are allowed to be broken but not others.

    I didn’t know the Quran made reference to pictures, considering how long ago it was written.

    I can think of numerous reasons someone might have these pictures. Perhaps they show her breastfeeding. Maybe she had breast cancer and the pictures show the various stages of reconstructive surgery. Maybe she’s into fitness and/or undergoing weight loss and has been keeping a record of her progress by taking pictures of her body.

    When my second daughter was born she had explosive diarrhea while my wife was changing her. Made a huge mess. I posted a picture to a local forum I was a member of to show the humorous side of having kids. Several people thought it was the equivalent of child pornography since it showed my daughter naked (albeit covered in poop). As if any picture of a naked kid has to automatically be considered porn. Not all nude pictures are of a sexual nature.


    Edited: I wonder, if I crossed the border and agents saw naked or semi naked baby pictures on my phone if they’d assume I was into child porn. This is why I strongly disagree with agents ability to snoop through my phone.
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 68 of 73
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,314member
    ericthehalfbee said:
    I didn’t know the Quran made reference to pictures, considering how long ago it was written.

    I can think of numerous reasons someone might have these pictures. Perhaps they show her breastfeeding. ...
    Am I missing something from some original source... or is this a basic lack of understanding of Islam?
    Why do people keep referring to naked?

    I thought the article was fairly clear the issue was there were pictures of her without her hijab (a head-covering or veil).

    And, while I'm no expert on Islamic law, an application of the principal to photos would seem pretty easy and clear.
  • Reply 69 of 73
    cgWerks said:
    ericthehalfbee said:
    I didn’t know the Quran made reference to pictures, considering how long ago it was written.

    I can think of numerous reasons someone might have these pictures. Perhaps they show her breastfeeding. ...
    Am I missing something from some original source... or is this a basic lack of understanding of Islam?
    Why do people keep referring to naked?

    I thought the article was fairly clear the issue was there were pictures of her without her hijab (a head-covering or veil).

    And, while I'm no expert on Islamic law, an application of the principal to photos would seem pretty easy and clear.
    I mostly agree with you -- I think people are making a big leap to saying they were naked pictures... they were immodest pictures... though if you were to ask someone in let's say Bangladesh they very well might refer to her being 'naked' by their standards.  BTW, I have been the scandalous brother who arrived ... immodestly dressed on day one and had to do a quick shopping trip to dress more appropriately (on the bright note some of this Bangladesh clothing for men... comfortable for lounging around in.  

    Photos (I would think) would be in the eyes for the person who they are for and for what purpose.  At no time though were these photos meant for the eyes of a stranger.
  • Reply 70 of 73
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 934member
    maestro64 said:
    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. 
    Please please please tell us you aren't a US citizen. Your statement is 99% incorrect.
    ronnSpamSandwichbkkcanuck
  • Reply 71 of 73
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    linkman said:
    Please please please tell us you aren't a US citizen. Your statement is 99% incorrect.
    In what fashion is it in any way incorrect? Or are you pretending the rule of law actually still exists?
  • Reply 72 of 73
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,314member
    bkkcanuck said:
    I mostly agree with you -- I think people are making a big leap to saying they were naked pictures... they were immodest pictures... though if you were to ask someone in let's say Bangladesh they very well might refer to her being 'naked' by their standards.
    Yeah, I understand that. I'm just saying the article it self says (unless the reporting was inaccurate) that the issue was her photos didn't have her in a hijab. Maybe it went further than that, but from the article, that was the concern.
  • Reply 73 of 73
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 934member
    linkman said:
    Please please please tell us you aren't a US citizen. Your statement is 99% incorrect.
    In what fashion is it in any way incorrect? Or are you pretending the rule of law actually still exists?
    Unwarranted NSA eavesdropping, CIA gathering intel of US citizens on US soil, etc.
This discussion has been closed.