
Draft law to require warrants for border device searches - CrankyBear
http://www.zdnet.com/article/draft-law-to-require-warrants-for-border-device-searches/
======
unchocked
Senator Wyden had a town hall last night. In it, I witnessed a constituent
share concern about device searches at the border. The Senator said he shared
the concern, that he would investigate, and that he would introduce
legislation if he did not like the results of that investigation.

This is the result of his promise, delivered that same night. Representative
Democracy works. Talk to your representatives.

Edit - the letter:
[https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=B947731A-2394-484B...](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=B947731A-2394-484B-81E3-FDD49530EBF4&download=1)

~~~
belovedeagle
So you reckon than in less than 24 hours the senator has completed a thorough
investigation and also had time to draft a bill? Or maybe is it the case that
this work has been ongoing for months...?

~~~
dragonwriter
> So you reckon than in less than 24 hours the senator has completed a
> thorough investigation and also had time to draft a bill?

No, I think on less than 24 hours, he's directed his staff to do so, and they
have.

> Or maybe is it the case that this work has been ongoing for months...?

It may leverage background work that has been done in the past without being
directed at a specific legislative outcome; finding that existing work,
presenting a summary and recommended course of action, and then following
through with drafting a bill is fairly routine legislative staff work, and
there's certainly lots of work that's been done and is available on the issue
from both government and non-government sources that staff could readily find,
summarize, and present as the basis for an action decision.

------
ScottBurson
The CBP's job is to control the movement of _people and physical objects_
across the border. They have neither the charter nor the capability to control
_information flow_ across the border. All they are accomplishing by trying to
do the latter is to harrass travelers, the vast majority of whom are innocent.

So if they want to verify that an object that appears to be a laptop is not
actually filled with cocaine -- great, have at it. But if they want to log in
to it and poke around the filesystem -- no dice.

(Forgive me if I belabor the obvious here. But it seems the distinction needs
emphasizing.)

~~~
imglorp
I think the overt intention is to identify undesirable travelers and exclude
them from entry.

In reality it's much more of a "papers please" situation acclimatizing
everyone to control of their movements. Things are progressing quickly towards
the totalitarian state.

~~~
ScottBurson
> I think the overt intention is to identify undesirable travelers and exclude
> them from entry.

Well, okay. Ideally, in the case of non-citizens, we would figure out the ones
we wanted to exclude before issuing them visas, but that process can't be
perfect, and a case can be made for allowing CBP agents to take a closer look
at them and exercise their discretion.

Two points about that. First, as koenigdavidmj points out, this can't apply to
citizens. The only possible reason for examining information carried by
citizens is to make the CBP an extension of the police, and once you've done
that, Fourth Amendment protections have to apply. (Obviously this is my
personal opinion only, not something the courts have said; but the argument
seems very straightforward to me.)

And secondly, there are reasons to think this is not going to be a very
effective filter, to the point that it's probably not even worth doing. Once
word gets out among America's enemies, as it surely has long ago, of the need
not to carry incriminating information across the border, sophisticated
adversaries simply won't do it. You might catch some low-level criminals, but
really, what do you think the false negative rate is? By their own admission,
the CBP are searching a small fraction of electronic devices, so the chance of
them catching even a stupid miscreant seems under 10%; for the smart ones it's
probably under 1%. This is particularly true if all they profile for is dark-
skinned men with strange names -- like Sidd Bikkannavar.

------
james_pm
Is there any evidence, other than anecdotal, that these types of searches have
actually "gotten worse in quantity under the new president" as the EFF states?

And for Americans coming to Canada, be aware your phone and laptop are fair
game at our border crossings too. No warrant required (yet).
[https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-
and-l...](https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/public-safety-and-law-
enforcement/your-privacy-at-airports-and-borders/#toc3)

~~~
mi100hael
I doubt they've gotten worse. BUT, they shouldn't have been legal in the first
place, especially for American citizens. The whole notion of "Constitution-
free zones" is ludicrous.

~~~
dawnerd
And from what I understand it's a 100 mile zone around the borders?
[https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)

~~~
spacemanmatt
That looks to cover about 95% of the population.

~~~
maxerickson
They can only do a border search of someone who has recently crossed the
border. So it doesn't apply to all the people in the zone.

It covers a bunch of Michigan because a boater does an entry process once they
stop boating, not when they cross an imaginary line.

There are rumbles of plans to move to a different, broader standard going
forward.

~~~
__jal
That may be the rule for particularized searches (I don't know one way or the
other), but "papers please" road checkpoints are common[1]. U.S. citizens are
theoretically not required to show papers. In practice, theory and practice
diverge.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_interior_checkpoints)

------
Arizhel
This draft law is for show only. It's not going to be enacted; it's being
pushed by Ron Wyden, a Democrat who's far more progressive than the rest of
his party, and in a Congress that's totally controlled by Republicans, with an
America-first Republican in the White House. There isn't a chance this law
will be passed. He might as well be promoting a bill to introduce single-payer
socialized medicine in the US along with a Universal Basic Income.

~~~
smhenderson
_This draft law is for show only._

Sometimes that's the best a representative can do. That doesn't mean it has no
value. It raises awareness, keeps the issue on the public record and,
hopefully, eventually, leads to a pull toward the center and some reasonable
compromise.

~~~
logfromblammo
It may also be used as campaign propaganda. Everyone who votes against your
bill may one day see a campaign ad saying, "Rep./Sen. Whatsname voted _in
favor_ of warrantless searches of your _personal electronic files_ , when all
you wanted was to _come back home_."

Such is undoubtedly why bills of this nature are smothered in committee by
politicians who are so secure in their gerrymandered districts that they could
bite the head off of a baby on live television the day before election day and
still win the seat.

------
timthelion
I opened it up, thinking to myself "what, in a Republcan controlled house? Am
I going to do a 180 on which party a vote for?" But then it was a dem.

