Hacker News Reader

Comment by manigandham | Hacker News Reader

Where did I make that argument? Most people here have no idea how law enforcement or CBP operates. Some full drives are not a big obstacle and they're not going to waste time without knowing who you are first.

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.

View on HN

I believe pretty much none of these protections exist at the US border if you aren't a US citizen, which isn't that much of an edge case considering that's like 96% of the world's population and a lot of people may want or have to visit the US at some point.

Why do you expect that they would apply to non-citizens crossing an international border?

I think you must be talking about another situation than the US, can you explain? The us border patrol can do this to citizens and non-citizens, and they assert their right to do it to anyone within 100 miles of the border, which is much more than half the us population. I don't want this for noncitizens crossing the border either. One reason for that is I don't want this to happen to me either.

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.

The previous poster was talking about non-citizens and that's what I responded to. Non-citizens by definition don't have the same rights.

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.

Would you support them seizing data from someone who owns a legal marijuana cultivation business in San Diego (because he's so close to the "border area") and then sharing that information with the DEA to federally prosecute him? The definition of "law-abiding" there would get a little murky.

What if it's someone who grows weed for his personal, medical use in an illegal state?

Why does it matter what I support?

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.

> Marijuana is federally illegal and comes with plenty of risks

The only real risks are being arrested for using it, which was the whole point of making it illegal: to arrest you for it.

Sure, along with possible fines, incarceration, loss of property, civil judgments, reputation loss, etc.

Yeah, all of which may originate from the arrest. Which he already said is the biggest risk.

He said "only" risk. I consider them separate. Are we really debating the semantics of the plurality of risks in this situation? This thread is hopeless.

I'm saying you just repeated what he said with more words for no reason. Why are we talking about what affects an arrest might cause? It's not related at all.

Are you asserting that they never collect data from anyone who isn't crossing illegally?

Of course they do. I only said that a bunch of harddrives aren't going to be a real problem for them. Not sure why that's leading to so many extra interpretations of things I didn't say.

IIRC there is no protection of “reasonable suspicion” that CBP needs to follow.

For forensic, as opposed to manual, searches of electronics there is under the district court judgement in Alasaad v. Nielsen (currently on appeal as Alasaad v. Wolf because of change in DHS leadership.)

There absolutely is: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/11/12/border...

"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."

Well, “absolutely” is a bit strong based on District Court ruling currently on appeal.

Is it a false statement? Until an appeal actually overturns this, is this not the new standard?

> Until an appeal actually overturns this, is this not the new standard?

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...

Not even close. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/30/black-us-d...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com