steven n.

About

Username
steven n.
Joined
Visits
119
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,240
Badges
1
Posts
1,229

Reactions

890Like0Dislike54Informative

  • ACLU says US border agents have 'near-unfettered' ability to seize iPhones, other devices

    steven n.steven n.
    carnegie said:
    Notsofast said:
    The headline misleads at the ACLU Is correct that current law allows Border agents an unfettered ability to search you and your belongings when you are entering America (as is the case in most countries in the world). Instead, the headline should read that the ACLU is proposing the US Supreme Court change the well established and clear and consistent rulings that there is a "border search exception" to the general warrant requirement and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy at the border.  Border searches have NEVER required a warrant or probable cause  in our nation's history for obvious reasons. 

    The ACLU and others are attempting to make a distinction that digital records should be treated differently.  This is an unlikely outcome from the Supreme Court as it would effectively vitiate much of the efficacy of protecting the country at our borders.  


    There is indeed a border search exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. But the scope of the search allowed by that exception, as it applies to smartphones, is in dispute. There's conflicting case law on the matter. I think the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v California (2014), though it didn't relate to the border search exception, augers well for the ultimate success of the position that suspicionless forensic border searches of smartphones aren't allowed.



    Because Riley v California specifically did not relate to the border search exception means it will have almost 0 bearing in the ACLU's case for border searches. Riley was a typical traffic stop/arrest in San Diego. The ruling basically said searching property is not the same as searching a body in the course of an arrest (Chimel v. California, 1969). The border exception specifically mentions property being searchable warrantless.
    spacekid

  • ACLU says US border agents have 'near-unfettered' ability to seize iPhones, other devices

    steven n.steven n.
    spice-boy said:

    Notsofast said:
    The headline misleads at the ACLU Is correct that current law allows Border agents an unfettered ability to search you and your belongings when you are entering America (as is the case in most countries in the world). Instead, the headline should read that the ACLU is proposing the US Supreme Court change the well established and clear and consistent rulings that there is a "border search exception" to the general warrant requirement and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy at the border.  Border searches have NEVER required a warrant or probable cause  in our nation's history for obvious reasons. 

    The ACLU and others are attempting to make a distinction that digital records should be treated differently.  This is an unlikely outcome from the Supreme Court as it would effectively vitiate much of the efficacy of protecting the country at our borders.  


    I suggest you read the article again, the ACLU is NOT suggesting digital records are not covered under the 4th amendment but the opposite. 
    I think that is what Notsofast said (correct me if I am wrong).  Basically:

    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.

    raisees the question of reasonable.
    United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977) (sustaining search of incoming mail). See also Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983) (opening by customs inspector of locked container shipped from abroad). Stated:

    That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.

    and from 1789 (Act of July 31):

    ... the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops.

    What the ACLU is stating is digital is somehow different than other data and property. There is 200+ years of precedence it really isn't.
    chasmjeffythequickspacekid

  • Apple, Qualcomm reach modem licensing deal to end 'no license, no chips' trial

    steven n.steven n.
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    Wow! Basically, Qualcomm blinked. This is going to be a positive for AAPL's price....although maybe the word had leaked out some time ago, and that would explain the big push upward for AAPL lately. Was this the worst kept secret in the world?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    Early stock response has been very muted for Apple , but QC is up significantly. 
    That’s because QC had so much more risk exposed. As in substantially more. Apple had a sniffle. QC had walking pneumonia. 
    SpamSandwichMplsPericthehalfbee

  • Indian government requests Apple remove TikTok from App Store over child safety fears

    steven n.steven n.
    sree said:
    steven n. said:
    Another example of trying to shield people and individuals from the reality of life: it can be dangerous: other people might have different views. 

    Going down a path trying to get companies to remove apps (either by social or government pressure) and force one persons morality down the throat of another’s is, not only fool hardy, but dangerous.
    Well, should small children be exposed to porn?

    I don't think any parent would be 'culturally inclined' to that. 
    We are not talking porn. At the end of the day, the parents are responsible for monitoring their children.  Offsetting THAT responsibility to some random government is not a good idea.  
    jbdragon

  • Indian government requests Apple remove TikTok from App Store over child safety fears

    steven n.steven n.
    Another example of trying to shield people and individuals from the reality of life: it can be dangerous: other people might have different views. 

    Going down a path trying to get companies to remove apps (either by social or government pressure) and force one persons morality down the throat of another’s is, not only fool hardy, but dangerous.
    jbdragoncornchip