
Woman Banned from US After Border Agent Finds Proof of Drug Use on Phone - benevol
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywwvxm/woman-banned-from-us-after-border-agent-finds-proof-of-drug-use-on-phone
======
jstanley
So she was banned from entering the US not because she was carrying any drugs,
and not because she intended to sell any drugs or get hold of any drugs, and
not because she was currently using any drugs.

She was banned from entering the US because she had _previously_ taken
drugs...

EDIT: Also, the video on how to protect yourself when crossing the US border
is "not available in my region"? What the hell? Do people in my region not
have to protect ourselves when crossing the US border?

~~~
pjc50
She was banned from the US because border control are arbitrary, intrusive,
judgemental, prejudiced and like the fact that they have power over people who
have no rights in that context.

~~~
rhizome31
US border control is indeed an unpleasant experience. Even Chinese border
control is nicer.

~~~
imron
Chinese border control has been a pleasant experience for at least the last 20
years (as long as I've been visiting China) and probably longer.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
It's public knowledge I was charged with two counts of _Traffic controlled
drug_ and one count of _Posses Prescription drug_. All charges later dropped.

I still joke about it on a daily basis with friends in all the usual digital
chat apps.

There is _absolutely no freaking way_ I would _ever_ go to the US.

Full stop. Period. End of story.

Edit: fixed an the words

------
aestetix
The exchange they found on her phone that established her prior drug use was a
conversation between her and her doctor. Is border patrol allowed to violate
patient/doctor confidentiality? What about attorney/client privilege?

~~~
executesorder66
They shouldn't have been looking on her phone anyway. What the fuck kind of
fascist nation has the US become?

~~~
koolba
Putting aside whether you think drug use should be a disqualifying factor for
entering the country, assuming it is, why is it wrong to find evidence of it?

Are you implying that an alien attempting to cross the border has all the same
constitutional rights as a citizen?

~~~
mijamo
I am not so familiar with the US law but why wouldn't they?

The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood."

To be even clearer, the second states:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status."

Not being a US citizen does not allow the US government to violate basic human
rights.

And just if you think pricavy is not a basic human right, in the same
declaration you find:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks."

EVERYONE. Not just "US Citizen".

But then again maybe the US do not respect the most basic human rights.

~~~
koolba
The "everyone" referred to in that document and all other laws in the USA
apply to people after they're here. Not before.

Yes they apply to both citizens and non citizens alike. All have those
freedoms and short of seeking elected office or voting, there isn't much
distinction.

But that doesn't mean those rights apply externally. A woman in Saudi Arabia
doesn't have freedom of speech per the US first ammendment. A man in Russia
doesn't have fourth ammendment protections against searches.

Arriving at the border doesn't mean you're inside. Until the country lets you
in, you're still outside.

~~~
shakna
> Arriving at the border doesn't mean you're inside. Until the country lets
> you in, you're still outside.

You do realise that "border" is not well-defined, right?

It's somewhere between 25-250 miles around the US... So when have you actually
entered? The CBP certainly don't view it as having been processed through
customs and immigration and regularly detain people who have been processed.

> all other laws in the USA apply to people after they're here.

When do they arrive?

You can spend your entire visit within the US's border region.

~~~
koolba
> You do realise that "border" is not well-defined, right?

> It's somewhere between 25-250 miles around the US... So when have you
> actually entered? The CBP certainly don't view it as having been processed
> through customs and immigration and regularly detain people who have been
> processed.

Again, I never said I agree with any of this. I'm saying this is how the
current laws have been interpreted and upheld till now.

> When do they arrive?

After they've passed customs. Being inside the custom's office doesn't grant
special rights.

~~~
shakna
> After they've passed customs.

I specifically said _that is not the case_ , and BCP say that is _not_ the
case, and Congress do not say that is the case. (See U.S. v. Hernandez-Lopez,
where 50 miles _after_ passing through customs was still sufficient to allow
for detainment by border patrol.)

It is an expectation of most travelers, but it is patently false.

> Again, I never said I agree with any of this.

Neither have I. The law is _ambiguous_ , and practically without restraint.
Even when there is restraint, the BCP regularly are not aware, and violate it.

------
belorn
"A British Columbia woman was issued a lifetime ban at the US border after
officials found an email with her doctor"

A very clear example why it is important to have encryption in the context of
email. A private conversation between a patient and their doctor should be
sacrosanct, and if government can't keep their hands away then technology need
to step in and try to do its best to protect people.

~~~
simonh
They read the email on her phone. Encryption of the message between the phone
and her doctor would have been useless.

~~~
belorn
Encryption can also work on data in rest. There is no reason why very
sensitive information is not stored in more safe way on the phone.

~~~
calvano915
Having your email app configured within the "secure folder" on a Samsung
Galaxy, protected by Knox encryption and requiring biometrics or a password,
for example.

~~~
simonh
But to even get to anything on the phone they must have got the owner to
unlock it anyway. All this is pointless if the user can be compelled or
persuaded to grant access. Which in this case is what happened. And if you
don't grant access, they just don't let you into the country anyway. Is still
don't understand how you think these measures would help.

------
iDemonix
I don't plan on ever visiting the US, especially with its current
administration, but if I were to visit then I'd just take a £20 burner phone
and no other tech. Anything I need I can put in to any number of cloud
services and get it when I'm through the pointless interrogation.

~~~
srrge
I thought about it but what if they consider it suspect that you have a burner
or a freshly wiped phone?

~~~
rkcf
A job I interviewed for recently found it suspicious that I didn't have a
facebook or other social media accounts. As if I was lying and had something
to hide. I can only imagine what law enforcement would think about that.

~~~
marssaxman
I'd be happy to not take a job with a company like that.

------
pjc50
Meanwhile in another thread people are arguing about "free speech" in the
context of Nazis. I wonder if some of the people so keen to defend the worst
kinds of speech could be redirected to argue that people might have a right to
_private_ free speech with their doctor and also enter the US?

~~~
andriesm
I fail to see why there should necessarily be this tention between free speech
and privacy?

~~~
pjc50
If I report what you said to someone else, is that my free speech or your
privacy?

Privacy isn't just about how wide the 4th amendment is and whether it applies
to cellphones at borders, it's a broader construction which in some cases
requires suppressing information.

------
rkcf
Tourism is one of the largest industries in the US. Approximately 77 million
foreigners traveled here in 2016 [1]. Hopefully, in time, we can get some
statistics about lost revenue due to these policies and persuade congress
against them. Lost profits seem to be something they understand and take
action on.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/214686/number-of-
interna...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/214686/number-of-
international-visitors-to-the-us/)

------
throw2016
This is a intrusive and brazen breach of the right to privacy as is any
inspection of personal devices and papers wherever it occurs.

It's time to stop the apologism and accept we are at the bottom of the
slippery slope. It's also time to stop the pointless grandstanding about
China, Russia etc to feel smug and superior because there is zero moral
authority to pull that off.

The bigger problem is inspite of the outrage by many nothing happens. Is
democracy working?

------
justinjlynn
Yet another reminder to _never_ cross borders while carrying anything other
than disposable electronic communications and/or storage devices containing
zero personal information. If anything leaves your sight, consider it copied
and compromised - burn it.

------
mnm1
Thanks border guards for keeping this terrorist out. /s

Seriously, she should not have admitted to drug use. Do not admit to anything
at any border at any time. Always password protect the phone or even log out
of your accounts in case they get in anyway. I've seen border agents pull a
family into questioning because the mother hadn't signed her passport. Don't
do that shit. The border is the worst place on earth and you can't fuck around
there (any border to any country). Have fun after you cross over. Have common
sense at the border. Lie if necessary but make sure it's a proper lie for the
situation.

------
jlebrech
proof of law breaking, yes but the snooping is worrying

~~~
tokenizerrr
She wasn't in the US at the time. Which US laws were broken?

~~~
jlebrech
do they have to be US laws, if laws are broken in the country of origin it
means she's a criminal.

~~~
tokenizerrr
Using drugs is not illegal. Possession is, but if you are given something by a
friend and take it (as described in the article) you don't take possession.
There was no proof of any laws being broken.

------
kushti
Why such an accent on the gender? I see no any relevance of the gender in
regards with article contents.

~~~
Simon_says
Half the headlines start with "Man [verb] ..." and you never noticed. Maybe
look within for the sexism?

~~~
tomatsu
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FloridaMan/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FloridaMan/)

~~~
Simon_says
Good point. It's arguably way more than half.

