As the article states the “border” area encompasses a population of 220M people and every traveler coming in and out of the US.
Take CBP acting as Trump’s personal force in quashing protests as another data point.
They’ve all but dropped the pretense this work is focused on preventing illegal immigration and we ignore that at our peril.
I am surprised at the HN reaction here and how many people are upset over something I never said though.
As far as the data collection, searches without reasonable suspicion are already ruled unconstitutional. The rest has been policy for years. The only change is centralizing the data but this isn't big news and there are already movements against existing practices.
I don't support unlawful collection or searching law-abiding citizens but that has nothing to do with my work, or what would realistically happen in the above scenario. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rest of your political claims.
What if it's someone who grows weed for his personal, medical use in an illegal state?
Marijuana is federally illegal and comes with plenty of risks. I don't think CBP should be abusing border area privileges for drug-related offenses but technically the fed govt can use the support of any agency. It's highly unlikely that CBP/DEA would waste time if the establishment is legitimate given state laws unless you're helping a cartel or personally known as a major dealer.
The only real risks are being arrested for using it, which was the whole point of making it illegal: to arrest you for it.
During the bush 2 administration, they were harassing people traveling to the us who were making documentaries about the us in the iraq war. This is just a convenient way for them to invade the lives of privacy of people coming through the border.
I never said I supported this but just explained what would happen in the original scenario and that this isn't new policy. Anyways I've given up trying to deal with the irrational and emotional behavior on HN when it comes to political topics.
"A Boston federal court ruled that U.S. federal agents can’t conduct “suspicionless” searches of international travelers’ smartphones and laptops at the border and other ports of entry, a decision hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a major victory for privacy rights. In a 48-page decision, U.S. district judge Denise Casper ruled that border officials need justifiable reasons to search a person’s electronic devices, which should be balanced against the privacy interests of travelers."
No, because the 11th Circuit Court or Appeals has already ruled to the contrary, while the 4th and 9th Circuits have rules similarly. However the First Circuit rules on this there is a Circuit split until the Supreme Court resolves it. So calling other side of that split the absolute rule is presumptuous.
https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-fede...