US-Born NASA Scientist Detained At The Border Until He Unlocked His Phone (theverge.com) 627
Sidd Bikkannavar works at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. After racing solar-powered cars in Chile, he had trouble returning to America.
mspohr quote The Verge:
Bikkannavar says he was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and pressured to give the Customs and Border Protection agents his phone and access PIN. Since the phone was issued by NASA, it may have contained sensitive material that wasn't supposed to be shared. Bikkannavar's phone was returned to him after it was searched by CBP, but he doesn't know exactly what information officials might have taken from the device...
The officer also presented Bikkannavar with a document titled "Inspection of Electronic Devices" and explained that CBP had authority to search his phone. Bikkannavar did not want to hand over the device, because it was given to him by JPL and is technically NASA property. He even showed the officer the JPL barcode on the back of phone. Nonetheless, CBP asked for the phone and the access PIN. "I was cautiously telling him I wasn't allowed to give it out, because I didn't want to seem like I was not cooperating," says Bikkannavar. "I told him I'm not really allowed to give the passcode; I have to protect access. But he insisted they had the authority to search it."
While border agents have the right to search devices, The Verge reports that travelers aren't legally required to unlock their phones, "although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if they do not." They also report that Bikkannavar "was not allowed to leave until he gave CBP his PIN," adding that the cybersecurity team at JPL "was not happy about the breach."
The officer also presented Bikkannavar with a document titled "Inspection of Electronic Devices" and explained that CBP had authority to search his phone. Bikkannavar did not want to hand over the device, because it was given to him by JPL and is technically NASA property. He even showed the officer the JPL barcode on the back of phone. Nonetheless, CBP asked for the phone and the access PIN. "I was cautiously telling him I wasn't allowed to give it out, because I didn't want to seem like I was not cooperating," says Bikkannavar. "I told him I'm not really allowed to give the passcode; I have to protect access. But he insisted they had the authority to search it."
While border agents have the right to search devices, The Verge reports that travelers aren't legally required to unlock their phones, "although agents can detain them for significant periods of time if they do not." They also report that Bikkannavar "was not allowed to leave until he gave CBP his PIN," adding that the cybersecurity team at JPL "was not happy about the breach."
Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
And by him I mean the CBP officer guilty of breach of national security.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You judge people by what you know.
GP seems to judge scientists by their (un)willingness to throw a temper tantrum.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Informative)
You've clearly never actually read a security agreement document. At least for civilians, any threat of harm to one's self or family is sufficient cause to relinquish the classified material to whomever is making the threat.
Personally, the thought of having to spend more time with a Wyatt-Earp-Syndrome border guard thug meets my threshold of "harm" . Just state that you're giving up the materials unwillingly under threat, and at least in theory you're in the clear.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have to call [employers] lawyers. This is not my phone, it is theirs and I am forbidden from giving out the code.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, you're not getting it.
Scientist X is in the process of being cleared for carrying secret data.
Scientist X is handed bogus data package, informed the data is secret and not to be revealed.
Agent Y performs an illegal search; operation one might expect from an enemy agent, because law-abiding agents of USA would never breach the law.
Agent Y pressures scientist X to reveal the secret content.
If scientist X bows to the pressure and reveals the content, he's deemed unfit to handle genuine secret data. Agent Y did his work right; no actual secret data was revealed, but the weak link was identified and will be eliminated from the process.
If scientist X successfully resists the search, he is deemed fit to handle genuine secret data.
-----------------
Of course we all know it's total bullshit. But one can still dream.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't an illegal search, because he was transiting onto US Soil. There are special cases where 4th and 5th Amendment protections do not apply, and the border is one of those. Yes, even for US citizens. This is why Customs can search your luggage when you are entering in the country.
My suggestion (check with your attorney first) is to offer to "unlock the phone" and navigate anywhere on the phone that the Customs people want to see, to verify that there is no dangerous material on the phone, but never rel
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Informative)
"There are special cases where 4th and 5th Amendment protections do not apply, and the border is one of those"
The "special cases border" is also a moving target and now extends 100 miles inland from the physical border.
https://www.aclu.org/other/con... [aclu.org]
So if you live in Seattle, San Francisco, ALL of Florida, 2/3rds of New England, New York, Charleston, Augusta, Washington, DC & Philly - among many other places where up to 200 million Americans live, you're a "special case" at any time.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Interesting)
And by him I mean the CBP officer guilty of breach of national security.
That's what I thought.
I see the possibility of a CPB officer taking bribes (or blackmail) from a foreign entity, (government or business) to copy the phones of people who may have access to interesting things. So many are already on the payroll of drug runners.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer may be guilty of misrepresentation, but I blame NASA for not telling folks how to handle a NASA phone. CITIZENS have no requirement to answer any questions or facilitate a search. Leave the phone and keep walking.
Re: (Score:3)
The officer may be guilty of misrepresentation, but I blame NASA for not telling folks how to handle a NASA phone. CITIZENS have no requirement to answer any questions or facilitate a search. Leave the phone and keep walking.
Good idea. The suspicious* dark skinned guy being questioned by armed** CPB agents at an airport should just put the phone down in front of them, pick up his hand luggage and walk away through the airport ignoring their requests to stop. What's the worst thing that could happen right?
*why else would they want to get into his phone.
**I assume CPB agents are armed. If not I am sure there was someone of authority close by with a deadly weapon.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
... and sit in jail himself waiting for the results?
Re: (Score:3)
Stand for something or stand for nothing.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe he did the smart thing, and probably the best when it comes to making a stand.
Under protest unlock the phone, get it done, then report the incident to his employer (as breach of security - employer being NASA has a bit more standing) and report to the press (allowing for public outrage to ensue).
This way he has a fair chance of getting a lot of attention for the case - and it appears it worked, at least the story made it onto /.. If instead he had been held in jail at the border, it may have been a lot harder to get the story out quickly. Now the end result is the same (the story is out & hopefully NASA is enraged over the breach of security, more so than had he stayed in jail and they had gotten him out a week later without the phone having been unlocked), without him having to suffer unduly.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe he did the smart thing, and probably the best when it comes to making a stand.
Under protest unlock the phone, get it done, then report the incident to his employer (as breach of security - employer being NASA has a bit more standing) and report to the press (allowing for public outrage to ensue).
This way he has a fair chance of getting a lot of attention for the case - and it appears it worked, at least the story made it onto /.. If instead he had been held in jail at the border, it may have been a lot harder to get the story out quickly. Now the end result is the same...
When an individuals actions make the difference between a breach of security happening vs. not happening, I'd say the end result is not the same. I'm thinking NASA would agree, since they're the ones forced to do an investigation and assess impact right now over the transfer of sensitive information to unauthorized persons, which absolutely happened.
Sadly, based on policy, the person responsible for allowing a data leak to happen could now face considerable punishment. For his sake, let's hope that common sense prevails and his employer realizes the only entity truly responsible for this breach and coercion against a US Citizen is the US Government.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, based on policy, the person responsible for allowing a data leak to happen could now face considerable punishment.
So now it's getting interesting. NASA forbids him to reveal the PIN code (and let's assume there's a law in place that underpins this).
The border inspection requires him to unlock it (and for the sake of the argument, let's just assume they have the legal right to do so - I'm sure the immigration official told the guy so, and being an authority figure, the scientist has or at least should have no reason to doubt this).
The result of this is that one law requires something another law forbids. Talking about being caught between a rock and a hard place!
Re: (Score:3)
So now it's getting interesting. NASA forbids him to reveal the PIN code (and let's assume there's a law in place that underpins this).
With NASA being a government agency it's possible there is a law but it still seems unlikely. I'd rather expect it to be part of his employment contract or a related NDA (non-disclosure agreement). Then it's not two laws being at odds, it's a contract and a law. It seems like the law should prevail, but should it really?
Let's say a Boeing employee travels to France and a border officer there requires that he provides the password for his professional phone. Should he hand it over? Wouldn't every American a
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Interesting)
Not "after X number of PIN attempts" but after entering the "Wipe me" special PIN.
The officer has no means of discerning if the number they received is the one that unlocks the phone or one that wipes it.
There's even a milder option: Plausible Deniability sandbox. A special PIN that gives access to the phone in "guest mode", unlocks it to something that looks just like a generic phone content of a random citizen, while the real content remains hidden.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Insightful)
And the sad thing is, why couldn't a potential terrorist do this also? Give a fake social media account filled with nothing but liked cat videos and posts about how wonderful it is that Beyonce is pregnant. Give a PIN code that unlocks the phone into "totally not a terrorist user" mode with a browser history of innocuous searches, a bunch of games (e.g. Angry Birds), and other completely normal content. Then, when the border guard lets them in, unlock the phone into "secret evil terrorist" mode.
NOTE: I'm not in favor of what the NASA scientist was put through. Just pointing out that, even in the face of someone arguing "we need this to keep us safe," this doesn't make sense since it could be sidestepped so easily.
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not sad in the slightest. That is a natural consequence of liberty being at odds with freedom. I say let the terrorists in. I'll actually start worrying about them when there isn't a 1000x higher chance of being gunned down as I walk through Chicago than actually getting killed in a terrorist attack.
I don't ask that I government official stands next to me and individually pre-tastes every bit of food I eat either on the off chance that some of it may contain salmonella.
Now that I think of it, that's the opposite of sad, that's a sign of a rational mind at work. I'm not going to quote anyone. I'm just going to say don't give up your liberty for security. It won't end well for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Both Nasa employees, ordinary people and terrorists should have this. The evil group here is clearly the border patrol. If it wasn't evil, or at least contrary to the country's values, it would be legal inside the country.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA more standing than the oldest US LEO?
That is a possibility, some areas of NASA's research is more important to national security than protecting the borders from dodgy porn or similar. The exact nature of certain valving arrangements on liquid fuel rockets might be of interest to North Korea for example. Or some of their more advanced jet propulsion research might be of interest to Russia. The thing is that customs officer had no real good reason to search the phone and plenty of reasons why he shouldn't. Even if he did have the legal right to do it, it might not be the sensible thing to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Courts have nullified the constitution in practice (Score:3)
There is almost no aspect of the Constitution which hasn't been carved into shreds by numerous court rulings, especially the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment has been reduced in practice to barely, sort of cover a locked box in a house you own, which LEO may still break into and search under a list of circumstances that grows every year. (Acceptable "exigent circumstances" now includes "I thought I heard something".) And until Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) is rescinded, Border Patrol can
Re:Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is like a stopped clock. Occasionally, he says something true, but the reason why he said the thing and the reason why it's true are completely different.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:3)
Have you actually been to jail?
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't get a secret service escort just because you have a security clearance. I was a radar repairer in the Army and had a TS clearance, frequently travelled with classified radar schematics. They didn't dispatch the damn secret service just to escort me from one post to another. That's not how it works. Where in the world would you even get that bizarre idea?
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Informative)
For visitors, this is true. But for citizens it gets to be a lot more difficult. It's well understood that as a citizen, they cannot for any reason refuse you entry to the country. They can arrest you the second you enter, but they can't refuse citizens entry. After all, where will they send you if they don't allow you entry? And once they arrest you, all standard constitutional rights are now active. Your warrant claim is only tested for foreigners.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
Papieren, bitte!
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a clear violation of the constitution to conduct baseless, warrantless searches like that, border or not.
I don't give a shit if the courts have said it's okay. The courts used to say slavery was okay.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how border security works. They don't need a warrant. The courts have decided this.
There was nothing illegal that happened here.
Even if you're a returning US citizen?
This word "freedom". I don't think you (or most of the USA) knows what it means even though you spend your entire lives repeating it.
Re: Arrest him and throw him into Gitmo (Score:4, Informative)
The only benefit that US citizenship has in this situation that they can't put you on the next flight back to where you came from. But they can still give you the special search treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the map of those "border zones." [aclu.org]
Note that only 13 states don't have a portion of them within the zone and many states have all or most of their area within the border zone. For example, all of Maine is in the border zone. If you live in Maine, theoretically you could have your car searched without a warrant at any time because you're within 100 miles of the border. I live in NY and it's hard to tell for sure on the map, but I think I live barely outside of the zone. Still, most of New York State is w
Re: (Score:3)
Nurenberg has it as settled law. Just following orders is not an excuse. Illegal order have to be disobeyed (like the acting Attorney General did) or you are equally guilty.
Factory reset before you get off the plane. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, am wondering if I should be doing a factory reset before the plane finishes taxiing.
Or will they then demand my Google/Apple password?
Nah, I'm white. I'll wait 'till they come for us.
Use a burner phone going out of country every time (Score:3)
I'd get a burner phone with very limited personal data on it and use that for international traveling unless you don't mind the govt getting a copy of everything on your daily driver phone and saving it forever to be possibly used against you when the time comes (and the tyrant is rig
Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more worried that they'd install NSA-grade bootloader-compromising malware capable of surviving anything short of JTAG-reflashing everything from the motherboard BIOS to the hard drive, videocard, and network card firmware, and turn my kick-ass laptop into one that mysteriously crashes for no apparent reason thereafter, even after I've reinstalled Windows multiple times (without even getting into the fact that it would be permanently compromised from a privacy and security standpoint). Think: Sony rootkit on steroids, with the nearly-unlimited of the US government and support from the legal system behind it (for the few who don't know, Sony's rootkit was distributed as a file that auto-ran if you inserted certain audio CDs to play them on your computer. It literally REFLASHED YOUR DRIVE'S FIRMWARE to disable functions used by ripping software).
The question isn't whether the NSA has malware like that. They absolutely do. Google "Advanced Persistent Threat" ("APT"), and know that it's common knowledge that the US, Russia, Britain, China, and Israel (plus countless more) ALL have state espionage agencies with the resources to develop and deploy APTs... and they actively do it every single day.
The NSA is full of self-perceived super-patriots who've willingly sacrificed every shred of their own privacy, and see nothing wrong with inflicting large-scale collateral damage to American citizens' computer hardware in the holy name of protecting the American homeland from any threat... major or minor, real or perceived. To their mindset, if deploying malware to the laptops of 14 million American citizens crossing the border in some given year causes Windows (or any network hardware that might be subsequently used by those laptops) to occasionally crash for no apparent reason thereafter, but enables DHS to prevent a single terrorist attack, it's 100% worth it, and as far as they're concerned, anyone who thinks otherwise is an evil commie terrorist-loving scumbag who hates America.
Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically don't make any funny faces, give back any sass, or make eye contact while going through security or customs lines. The only joy in life these guys have is hassling people. It's a boring job, they're never going to get promoted and they know it, so they're going to take out their bullying instinct whenever they can. This is not government policy, these are individuals trying to prove that they have authority over you.
Re: (Score:3)
Odd. I find making eye contact and smiling works very well. They're doing a boring dull shitty job and they know it, you know it, and why not treat them as humans.
It also shows I'm not nervous, I don't feel threatened by them, I'm comfortable engaging with them and I don't feel I have anything to hide.
Of course, ask me for the disk encryption password for my work laptop and it's going to be a more difficult conversation. One that involves an unfortunate level of memory loss and a recommendation to contact t
Re:Factory reset before you get off the plane. (Score:5, Informative)
Technically CPB agents may need reasonable suspicion to stop you and probable cause to search you, but in practice they routinely exceed their authority, and they usually aren't challenged when they do. People just acquiesce to get it over with. That's a problem because if it remains customary long enough the courts will inevitably tend to view it more positively.
Additionally, the "Border Zone" in which CPB operates is within a hundred miles of the US border including coastlines. This means cities like Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, Sacramento and Portland are "border cities". Two thirds of Americans live where they can be stopped and searched by CPB. The ACLU has a convenient map [aclu.org] of the "border zone" on their website.
Racism at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What percentage of Muslims do this. Go on, provide the statistic and how you arrived at it.
Could be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly didn't have my crypto carrier card as I wasn't carrying crypto material, that one gets you waved past any security checkpoint. TSA had semi-recently been spun up. Naturally US military people are high risk on aircraft, so we got selected for 'random searching'.
TSA: Sign into the laptop and turn it over.
Me: Uhm. No? It's a classified laptop, and I have no proof you have proper clearance.
TSA: We handle government laptops all the time.
Me: Not my problem. You can swab it for explosives all you want, but if it leaves my line of sight, I'm grabbing the real cops to arrest you while I call the FBI to report theft of classified material.
They squawked like a bunch of chickens. Dumped out all of our stuff, triple checked everything. Sadly none of our stuff was easily breakable, because well, soldiers. Not for a lack of trying. They also tried to make us miss the flight. Like we cared, as again, government travel voucher. This was before body cavity searches and sexually assaulting folks, but it got pretty hands on. Laptop however remained within my line of sight and turned off the entire time. You could almost taste the bureaucrat rage. Got the "special" random selection treatment every time I flew (again, usually on govt dime) for a long while afterwards, so I guess they did get the last laugh.
Hell, that's TSA and pretty expected. Fed buddy was made to bin his bottled water, but his loaded Sig and spare loaded magazines were fine. CBP made me dig out receipts to prove the booze I picked up in Ireland were from the duty free shop. I had him hold my SAW (a not small belt fed machine gun) while I dug around for the bottles and receipt. He didn't even blink. Never underestimate a government employee's ability to follow stupid rules.
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Funny)
I see a good way of cleaning up the TSA here. Send military people, fully armed, on commercial flights, carrying classified information, with orders to protect--at all costs--this material from anyone without clearing accessing it. Anyone who attempts to take the material can be shot on sight.
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Informative)
Back when airport screeners were contractors they had the right to make that mistake and get a funny story out of it, but government employees can't legally ask you to turn that laptop on in public. The question itself was enough to get that guy arrested. When I was in civil service with DoD, I would travel without any government electronics if possible, because despite the laws, the TSA was a liability. Traveling internationally, forget about it, I don't think I was allowed to bring anything that had ever been in my lab with me. This NASA guy was on a personal trip to Chile with a phone with sensitive info on it... that's just stupid on his part. Get another phone for the trip.
I used to do development and testing for explosives detectors. Nitro-toluenes are very, very hard to get off your skin and clothes. I was pulled aside for random searching and swabbed for explosives. So I come up positive for DNT residue. I thought this was great, because I wasn't sure the machines they were using at the time would pick up the very small amount of residue from somone who used appropriate lab attire (in-field positive test!). I then told them that the reading wasn't likely a false positive and that I worked with explosives. Maybe I should have led with my Navy ID and an explanation that I was a scientist in the civil service, but they did NOT like that I admitted to having explosives residue on me.
Re:Could be worse (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to do development and testing for explosives detectors. Nitro-toluenes are very, very hard to get off your skin and clothes. I was pulled aside for random searching and swabbed for explosives.
In a past life, I was a contractor who spent 3 months bouncing between FOBs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The day before I flew home, I was on a CH-53 flying back towards Kuwait where i caught commercial back to Canada. I was sitting next to the door gunner, and as we flew along I think we crossed a range, and he let loose a dozen or so rounds out of the .50 cal. I spent the entire trip home thinking "Please don't swab me, please don't swab me..." and thankfully they didn't. Of course, trying to explain where you had been for three months when you had two in/out visas from Kuwait and a blank spot in between was another matter...
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Funny)
A friend of mine was on his way to one of those "fun" places in SE Asia. The TSA agent insisted on the soldiers, in full uniform, put their rifles through the X-ray machine. He, a Speicialist, began to protest but was quickly quieted by a senior officer. I guess the man in charge thought is was just easier to fulfill the idiotic request than voice any protest.
Just what did this TSA flunky think they could find "hidden" inside these rifles? Might someone sneak a fingernail clipper inside? I'm not absolutely certain but I'm quite sure they had bayonets in their packs.
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA confiscates nail clippers from pilots, too. The fact that there's a literal AXE hanging behind them in the cockpit (so they can smash the window and escape if the plane crashes and they somehow manage to survive long enough for the axe to be useful) has no effect on TSA's logic.
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
The logic is that the TSA doesn't 'know' the person in front of them is, actually, a pilot. He's just *dressed* like a pilot. If the TSA waves through pilots, then the bad guys will just pretend to be pilots.
See 'Catch Me If You Can'.
So, not *completely* stupid. The completely stupid part is taking toenail clippers away from anyone at all.
Re: (Score:3)
So I forked over my SAW until I snagged the bottles. Then traded. He looked at the receipt for about a second then moved onto the next guy
Congress and the courts know (Score:3, Informative)
Having diplomatic immunity from another country is really the only way around that...
If been from the USA was legally special, everyone from the USA would demand rights not to be searched..
So Congress made sure everyone entering the USA would face equal, fair questions and searches.
If a person would like not to be searched, find a way to get full diplomatic immunity...
i.e. persons and property can be examined. No probable cause, no warrant, no "suspicion" protection to stop every search request.
You can be searched, asked questions, have to show a device is what it should be.
Until federal courts or Congress sets new laws or comments on the need for "suspicion" of criminal activity all searches are legal.
Copies of your data are fine too. e.g. a camera can have its digital files looked at or recovered if deleted.
it's been like that for a while (EFF) (Score:3)
Here is the EFF advice for crossing borders with digital devices, from 2011:
https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi... [eff.org]
Re:it's been like that for a while (EFF) (Score:5, Informative)
Some more up to date advice:
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/... [wired.com]
What's JPL's policy on taking equipment abroad? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the guy's abroad on a personal trip, why's he carrying his JPL issued phone with him? That seems like a security no-no.
I've never worked at NASA but I have been issued equipment by government contractors and taking it out of the country while on personal trips was expressly forbidden. I never traveled abroad on company business but my understanding was that for at least some destinations the security department would require you to take a different laptop that only had the data you needed for the trip on it instead of your usual one. I'm not sure if that was for every destination or just for the more hostile ones.
Getting data across the border (Score:5, Funny)
Just put your data on a micro SD card and hide it in a Rubiks cube
Follow Proper Procedure: Call Company's Legal Dept (Score:3)
The phone/computer/whatever IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY and ALL THE INFORMATION on it is the property of YOUR EMPLOYER.
So just kindly tell the border agent that one must obtain permission from one's employer before revealing proprietary company information. Pretty much tell them that one has to get permission from one's company's legal department to reveal the unlock code for any company equipment because it's not one's own decision to make to reveal company proprietary information to a third party. That's pretty much standard policy for any company.
However, if it's one personal device, it's definitely it's within one's right to not give the border agents the password, but then it's also the border agent's right to detain you till you do, or till some other agreement is reached. Unless you can contact a lawyer immediately and have the funds to pay one, then without a lawyer helping you out, it's going to be difficult for you to navigate the legal minefield.
Re: (Score:3)
"but then it's also the border agent's right to detain you till you do"
Or get a warrant to say it's necessary.
Which would probably be refused.
The fear of "we'll just hold you until you co-operate" is not due process.
You object.
You wait.
Then you call in the lawyers (in this case JPL's, I imagine).
Because - as stated - they have no right to demand the passcode.
Hell, I'd be making them sign an NDA. As in YOU PERSONALLY sign the NDA to tell me what you'll do with the information in the phone. They'll refuse,
He didn't have authority to grant permission (Score:5, Informative)
As a matter of law, because he is not the owner, he cannot grant permission to search. Since he divulged his access, he and the TSA agent can be prosecuted under the CFAA.
IANAL.
That being said, anyone carrying anything they wish to keep confidential within 200 miles of a boarder, or while not in your own home effectively has no rights at all. Not as a matter of law, but as a simple matter of fact. Not just 4th amendments rights either. The police shoot dead unarmed people at least two times a week on average. As a simple matter of statistics, you are 300 times (times, not percent) more likely to be killed by a police officer than you are by a terrorist.
You people supporting these actions are insane.
Hindsight (Score:3)
The good folks in US Intelligence might want to whisper a few things into the ears of Customs regarding their search rules.
It is a bit more difficult to keep tabs on folks traveling abroad when they decide to leave their tracking devices. . . . . .er phones at home due to the issues experienced at the borders.
Tourism drops (Score:4, Informative)
Travel / tourism to US is plummeting.
The size of the effect varies by source:
6.5% - http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
17% - http://time.com/money/4662727/... [time.com]
25% - https://www.theguardian.com/tr... [theguardian.com]
50% - http://ttgnordic.com/interest-... [ttgnordic.com]
I am European.
I have been to United States tens of times, both on company budget and on my own.
I won't come back, unless pressed really hard by my employer.
Why should I?
The world is full of wonderful places.
Why should I choose a country which is openly hostile to visitors?
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not prepared to give up my (and everyone else's) 4th Amendment Rights on the off-chance that we might maybe catch a dirtbag. The cost of making that collar is just too high.
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:4, Insightful)
Then pretty much every case was decided wrong. It's happened before you know. See, for instance, the moving to detention camps of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, which was ruled constitutional by the same screwed up institution. Heavy emphasis on "US citizens" there, because it's kind of important.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there's a 'border search exception' to the 4th amendment, and there's nothing in the Constitution that grants the government that power. This is wrong and it needs to be stopped.
What they should do at the border is verify that you're a US citizen, do their tax thing if you bought stuff overseas, and that's it. People not covered by the Constitution (as in, non-US citizens) we can do what we want just as they can with us when we visit their countries--but this harassment of US citizens has to stop and I don't give a damn what happened on 9/11 that they use as a made up excuse for their illegal behavior. I feel trapped in my own country now because despite being a natural born citizen I don't feel safe leaving. I'm not afraid of other countries (well, most) but I'm very much afraid of my own government when I return.
Now, I don't know if this person is a US citizen or not. A non-US citizen working for the US government is an interesting conundrum but at the very least the power tripping border guard should've checked with someone before proceeding on.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing in the Constitution that says there's a 'border search exception' to the 4th amendment
The Fourth Amendment bans only "unreasonable searches and seizures". The exception considers searches at the border to be "reasonable".
Re: (Score:3)
The Fourth Amendment bans only "unreasonable searches and seizures". The exception considers searches at the border to be "reasonable".
That's only half of the story. The 4th Amendment also says that no warrants shall be issued (in plain language: no permission shall be granted to perform a search or seizure) "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." The so-called "Border Search Exception" manufactured by the courts out of thin air is an unconstitutional warrant. There is no probable cause, no supporting Oath or affirmation, and
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:5, Insightful)
I object to the citizen part being important. Much of the restraints placed on government by the constitution are worded with phrases like "The government shall not" or "No person shall be required to", with no mention of citizenship. If these are inalienable human rights, and if all men are created equal, then it shouldn't matter which country a person is from, the government has no business violating them.
Re: I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' (Score:5, Informative)
All men created equal, it says.
If by 'it' you mean the Declaration of Independence, then you'd be correct. The Constitution, however, does not contain these words.
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the person who handed over the phone probably did not have standing to claim 4th amendment rights.
The phone is not his.
It belongs to NASA.
For reference, see this about Microsoft [bloomberg.com]:
“Standing has been a barrier in cases that seek to vindicate people’s privacy rights,” said Jennifer Granick, a Stanford Law School professor. “It’s a serious issue in conducting constitutional litigation, and this case is no different.”
Four court decisions listed by U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle all reached the same conclusion -- Fourth Amendment protections can only be cited by individuals, and not vicariously by third parties. The most recent was a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the family of a driver who was shot and killed by police after a high-speed chase couldn’t invoke that right on his behalf related to a lawsuit over his death.
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:4, Interesting)
To date, my electronic devices have only been inspected (beyond "can you turn it on?") by the US border control. Granted, there may be others in the world but I normally don't travel to totalitarian hell-holes.
One of my previous employers made a policy in 2008 about what devices could be taken through the US border control and under which circumstances. Exec summary: if not on official business, no device from the employer can be taken to the US. If on official business, a loaner laptop is handed out and it will be re-imaged on return.
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is cut and dry as written and not really open to "exceptions".
"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."
It is easy for the government to stay within the law, just issue a warrant stating what you are looking for, but the 4th is specifically designed to stop fishing expeditions. That along with the right to travel freely really makes these laws questionable on the surface.
Kent v Dulles:
The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Re:I don't mean to go all 'Papierin, mein herr,' b (Score:4, Insightful)
There may be valid reasons for allowing searches at the border that are not allowed elsewhere, but finding kiddie porn isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
More like undertrained and underpaid bottom rung employee decides to exert his authority.
Re: (Score:3)
It should be controversial if he exceeds his authority. And if you expect a border agent to treat a private citizen better than an another government official you're naive.
In an atmosphere of pervasive fear it is especially important to constrain officials to operating with the limit of their authority.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't even work in government, but we're trained not to expose any data to our own people unless they have a valid reason to see that data. I imagine government agencies would have similar policies.
Re:Trump doesn't run borders (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trump doesn't run borders (Score:5, Insightful)
They act as legislators only by clarifying laws that are brought before the court during a lawsuit. And yes, the laws are indeed vague many times. They are made vague because it's easier to get them passed that way.
So for example, someone commits a crime, during the trial the defendant complains that evidence was seized illegally, or that he didn't know about certain rights; this gets brought before the courts to decide. The courts do not seek out these cases on their own. Then there's a conflict at the heart usually; the executive has some authority to do searches and obtain warrants, but the constitution forbids unreasonable searches, both sides have very good points. So the courts have to decide. Very often the conflict is between what current legislators think the meaning should be and what the current executive thinks the meaning should be. It's a tug of war, both sides want to enhance their own power while diminishing the power of the other side.
Note that almost nothing gets to the supreme court without there being a real solid conflict at the core with complex legal issues involved (except maybe the bush v. gore case). This is because most cases trickle up through the court systems, there have been appeals already and usually a disagreement between different circuit courts. Many of these "activist judges running amok!" cases would have that accusation no matter which way they ruled.
Citizen's United case is cited as an "activist court" decision, people hate that decision on the left and the right. Politicians love it though so it won't change anytime soon. However it was a real case brought all the way to the court with very good justification on both sides of the issue. Just because the decision was awful (and I think it was) does not mean the supreme court was being activist. Their job was to settle the dispute. And they decided that a group of people has the same rights as a single person, essentially, and that you could not restrict the free speech of a group of people even if that happens to be a corporation. People don't hate that decision because it violates the constitution or various laws, but because it violates how we want the law to be. The only way to fix that is with a constitutional amendment.
Now if congress does not like how a court rules, then the congress already has the power to override this, if they can get a law passed to clarify rules and enough votes to overcome a veto. But it's easier to just bitch that the courts are out of control because it agrees with the executive branch on occasion. If they don't like the courts then they need to be more clear with the laws and make sure the laws don't conflict with each other or conflict with the constitution. Also, complaining about the courts is an easy way to get re-elected.
There's a long history here too. Jefferson hated that Marshall did not allow the executive more power and accused that court of being "despotic", the same dispute that started to give the constitution actual weight instead of just a pretty piece of paper that could be ignored when politically convenient.
Re: Fail (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The president can not make a ban based on religion, and yet that is what he claimed this was even though the wording in the order itself made it muddled. Thus, put it on hold until the lawsuits go through. This is not judicial activism, this is the courts doing what they are supposed to do - the president does not have the power to dismiss a lawsuit unilaterally and so the courts must get involved.
So the original judge, appointed to Dubya, is a leftist hack? No one is getting killed over this. If we car
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much everyone human is leftist. Even Republicans.
The US uses its own (wrong) definitions that confuse the rest of the world.
Re:Trump doesn't run borders (Score:4, Interesting)
There are laws that the president cannot break. Treaties are laws. He would need congressional approval to break the treaties, including UN treaties. The president cannot increase the number of green card holders without congressional approval. Deportations require review by the courts, as constitutional due process applies to everyone in the US, legally or not. Opposite of that, the president also can't make all illegal immigrants legal by himself. Current immigration law forbids discrimination of immigrant visas on the basis of race, sex, or place of residence; though the president can impose stricter background checks ("extreme vetting"). Of course presidents have often overreached here.
Congress has the plenary power to regulation naturalization in the constitution, and because the constitution does not mention immigration the supreme court has held that this clause gives congress plenary power to regulation immigration. Nowhere in the constitution is the president granted powers over naturalization or immigration, although the executive does enforce these laws and regulation with some latitude granted by congress.
Unless you can point to the clause in the constitution that says otherwise, this is the job of congress. Which is one reason everyone was so angry at unilateral action taken by president Obama.
Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
That's the point.
The same people who whinged and bitched about Obama now want you to shut up about their golden boy. They're so brainwashed that they cant even see they're party to destroying freedom in the US. If it means keeping the other team down, they'll happily sacrifice everything.
Also dont get used to being able to criticise your government. They're already eroding that right by going after the press that isn't towing the party line. Those people telling you to shut up over the internet, they could be out in brown shirts telling you to do it in person sooner than you think.
Re:Stop complaining you crybabies! (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Being a hypocrite is within our rights. Of course you criticize who you vote for! We've done that in the US ever since the very first election; we do it at the presidential level and at the level of the local dog catcher. Even when a president gets a majority vote, in both electoral and popular vote, the president is still accountable to the people and the people are free to express their opinion on the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like the other poster said: if you complain about the person you voted for, and then you go and re-elect him, you're a moron and a whiner, and your criticism is useless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re-elect? I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about being elected period.
And if you're voting for the lesser of two evils, then how is it hypocrisy to complain that the lesser evil is still evil?
Most people these days vote against one candidate by voting for the opponent. They're not usually thinking "I love every single thing this person says" when they cast the vote. For example, Dubya runs against Kerry; should the people who complained about some of the things Dubya gone and voted for Kerry e
Re: (Score:3)
And if you're voting for the lesser of two evils, then how is it hypocrisy to complain that the lesser evil is still evil?
It is hypocritical to help evil and then complain about the evil you helped.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still supporting evil.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The First Amendment fails to keep you from being a hypocrite and an idiot though.
If you didn't think the candidate would be very good (and apparently they're so bad you're out there complaining about him), then why did you vote for him?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, Yes!
Two political parties, 300 million voters.
You are expecting a one-to-one relationship on every possible issue?
Look dear, you need to take some basic lessons in thinking if you are attempting a species upgrade. Human thought can be sophisticated.
Climate data (Score:5, Funny)
The Border guard was just being sure the guy wasn't trying to sneak any climate data into the US
Re: (Score:3)
This guy works on image analysis for telescopes in other words spy satellites which just happen to be large telescopes pointed downwards.
The NRO runs the spy satellites and the Air Force launches them. NASA has nothing to do with them besides providing rockets and launch platforms.
You're right, but there's still a decidedly non-zero chance that the hi-res optics he has access to see a lot of classified things.
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very good suspicion. By downloading a full image of his phone's storage, the FBI or NSA gets photos of all the places he's been along with GPS breadcrumbs. It could very well be that this engineer crossed paths unintentionally with another surveillance target while traveling. Checking these breadcrumbs helps them determine whether they should add him to the surveillance list.
And that is a fishing expedition, and not allowed under the law, without a specific warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
You are a native american then?
If not, then as you say, fuck off home. Back where _you_ came from.
Re:What information? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what if they come across an encrypted file or a password vault, do they also have the right to ask for access to those? Because if they do, then you're also going to have to change the passwords on perhaps hundreds of accounts. If a cop copies the keys to my front door, you bet I'll be changing the locks, and that goes double for digital keys; I have very little faith in their cyber-security.