Second Circuit Rules Border Agents Can Search Your Phone Without Suspicion
Second Circuit Allows Government to Search Electronic Devices at the Border
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that border agents may search travelers' electronic devices without any suspicion, rejecting arguments that the First and Fourth Amendments require a warrant. The Knight First Amendment Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press had filed an amicus brief in United States v. Alisigwe, warning that such searches expose private thoughts, associations, and journalists' confidential sources.
Today's decision leaves Americans' most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all.
- k310
Everyone please read Surveillance Self Defense from EFF [0]
My advice, take a burner phone to the airport (and elsewhere?), and since devices are subject to warrantless search anywhere and everywhere, via exceptions to the fourth amendment [1] (the constitution seems designed to be bent or outright ignored), keep your data at home and encrypted. The "cloud" is a government data supermarket.
For example.
> While the Fourth Amendment is the foundation, federal and state laws can add layers of complexity. For example, the Patriot Act expanded the government's ability to conduct surveillance and searches, particularly in national security cases, sometimes with a lower burden of proof than traditional criminal investigations.
MUCH lower.
- softwaredoug
Doing a bit of research, this applies to what’s considered a “manual search” as in a CBP agent spending time manually looking at your phone. It does not appear to allow (or speak to?) plugging your phone into forensic tools for a deeper inspection.
Not great, but I think that’s what’s being specifically adjudicated here.
They still cannot deny an US citizen entry if you decline to unlock your phone, though they may confiscate your device. I don’t know if they would then be allowed to do deeper forensics without a warrant.
- jchanimal
Since removing a nation-state rootkit is not structurally possible, how is this any different from requiring the device to be forfeited? If all search == seizure and destruction, does that change the legal basis?
- majorchord
I thought this was already allowed and the norm for many years?
- smalltorch
So store your data in a secure location and only access it with devices if your a journalist?