Ultimately, the invasiveness of this sort of search is not worth the slim chance that something of legal interest may be discovered. Criminals have free reign to "import" data via the Internet already, so they're just going to go that route most of the time. If you suspect someone of a crime, get a warrant, and then have your customs officer seize the device. But the "we're just checking to make sure you're not doing anything illegal" is antithetical to the freedoms the United States guarantees, and should not be tolerated at the border... at least when the stakes are this low.
I hope this case sees trial and the judge understands how to weigh the invasiveness against the possible benefits.
The weird thing you realize when you start exploring the law enforcement space is that the vast majority of people that break the law are just, pardon me for not mincing words, just monumentally stupid. They don't take basic precautions.
Police wind up dealing with the same people over and over and over and over again. You'd think they'd wise up and learn how to not get caught, but the mindset that leads to criminality is pretty far away from the mindset that leads to careful action.
It's only the very rare person that actually breaks the law with intent, and also with the care and forethought to avoid even the most basic law enforcement scrutiny. Organized crime represents the barest fraction of actual crimes committed.
So as a result, dragnet-style police tactics are often extremely effective at accomplishing their aims. Which is, of course, why they're employed.
This is, sadly, a pure human-rights issue. Sad because the human rights angle is just not very convincing to people who are invested in the status quo.
Which is why we still see these types of tactics, even today.
I think you mean most people that get caught breaking the law are monumentally stupid
There are plenty of people that break the law everyday and never get caught, unsolved crimes rates are HUGE
>>>Police wind up dealing with the same people over and over and over and over again. You'd think they'd wise up and learn how to not get caught, but the mindset that leads to criminality is pretty far away from the mindset that leads to careful action.
Recidivism is a complex issue and is not simply down to "you'd think they would wise up", it is mix bag of untreated Mental illness, lack of education, lack of support structures, lack of opportunity, and then even further reduction in opportunity due to a criminal record, and finally once you are "on the radar" of the system the police become aware of you and will target you for greater scrutiny
>>>So as a result, dragnet-style police tactics are often extremely effective at accomplishing their aims.
I would agree here, but only because their aim is to have a nice press release to "show their effectiveness" and justify their budgets, dragnet policing is pure security theater. it is a show for the taxpayers nothing more
Sure but this is a resource problem. If we devoted the resources, we could solve the crimes. Those resources would arguably be "better" deployed 'simply' rather than, say, by investing in officer sensitivity. The tactics of policing work, that's the argument I'm trying to make.
No, society deserves more sensitive policing, even though it costs more and demands more from people, because it's the right thing to do. It's a pure moral argument, and it loses something when you try to paint it as a tactics issue.
> Recidivism is a complex issue
It's really not. The whole thing can be boiled down to a very simple statement of fact. Society fails people. The reasons why it fails people can be largely determined to be resource problems, not failures in the mentality of the people trying to help. The 'bad egg' explanation of law enforcement failure should be taken way more seriously than it is. Most cops really do want the best for the people they have to work with on a daily basis.
But they just don't have the resources to put all these people into the precise social programs that they need. Every decent social worker is immensely overworked and underpaid. There's a massive number of people who want to get into social work but there's just not that many jobs available, because from a governmental budgetary perspective, money spent on social work is money thrown away.
Sure, when you get academics into a room and do studies, yes, money spent on social programs more than pays for itself. But that 'paying for itself' is diffuse, the repayment doesn't just flow back into state coffers. So you have to justify every expenditure.
It's a really hard problem, and laying blame at the feet of law enforcement systemic failure misses the point profoundly.
Ex: Somone was robbed at knife point in a city. With no direct physical contact with victom and no image of who did it and you don’t have any way to track this down.
People mostly get caught becase they can’t retire of of one thing so they keep rolling the dice and eventually something changes.
I was robbed at knife point years ago; I got the license plate of the stolen 'getaway' car (it was at a gas station on the parking lot); there were cameras there (not in the parking lot but connected to the building), I reported it immediately, the police (later on camera) saw the car crossing a toll booth and then it went into some village. They found the car abandoned but never (at least not in time for me to be helpful) got the robbers. If everything, including the village, would be blanketed with high res cams, they would've caught them. The toll booth cams were too low res to identify anyone, just the car + numberplate.
I do believe we know how to solve most (traditional; financial / online crime can probably be similarly solved with enough resources and invasion of privacy) crime with unlimited resources; we don't have unlimited resources AND, at least in my country (where the robbery took place), we (still) have strict privacy laws and they are not allowed to hang cams on the streets of these places. Which I find a good thing by the way, but it doesn't help solve unobserved crimes like violence in off the beaten path alleyways and stuff like this.
I actually say in the first line 'which I am against', so definitely not advocating it. Just saying; unlimited resources really do give us ways to solve most crimes but we might choose to value freedom and privacy over solving all crimes, which I hope happens although many places, like London/UK already have pretty much blanket camera networks.
Sure, if we where willing to implant GPS trackers and require people to upload their daily movements that would cost resources, but people’s unwillingness to be tracked like that (outside of cellphones) has nothing to do with resources. Thus a willingness to spend more money would not allow for that kind of tracking or even what you are suggesting.
PS: Low millions of cameras is also insufficient, you need billions just to cover major cities and even then people would focus on low coverage areas. You really need to track people for hours or even days to get positive identification. That takes more than a few cameras in the right places as plot demands.
I 100% reject the "bad egg" explanation of law enforcement failure and do not believe it is the "bad eggs" at all but instead a systemic failure caused by improper training, improper goals, improper exceptions and Unethical laws (aka the war on drugs) that have turn the police force from a protectionary force to a oppressive force. The police of today are not about protecting people, it is about control.
Further The number of laws, regulations, etc on the book ensure the most people on any given day can have something used against them, this leads to all manner of corruption and attracts those they want to abuse people
I also reject the idea that is is "resources" problem, we do not need more resources in policing and prisons, we in fact need less. What we need ti less criminal laws, less regulations, and less abuse by those with authority
You're 'othering' the police and the social system. If you get to know these people, listen to their stories, what they have to say about society's problems, as the people whose literal careers are to deal with them, the explanation of systemic failure rings more and more hollow.
But you have to actually go to these people and listen to their stories in order to understand. That takes work, but it's work made easier with Quora. But you don't need to, you can just look at the statements you're making and see that they're the products of narrative belief.
Feel free to, since you elected not to I will simply dismiss this claim
> If you get to know these people, listen to their stories, what they have to say about society's problems, as the people whose literal careers are to deal with them, the explanation of systemic failure rings more and more hollow.
That is neither required, or ideal in looking at the actual problems. the Inherent bias their outlook makes any opinions they have on the solutions suspect in the first place. Plus police are not trained researcher nor are likely to understand the root cause of the social problems that stretch back generations as such would likely propose the same "solutions" that have failed for those same generations. Such as increased prison terms for offenders, more draconian surveillance, decrease accountability in policing (some times called "giving police more unilateral authority at the street level). etc etc ad nauseam
For example most police officers when polled support the War on Drugs and oppose efforts to legalize narcotics, even though in every objective analysis of the facts the War on Drugs as a objective failure on every front,
Socially, the US is almost hilariously authoritarian, we aren't at any sort of interesting benchmark when it comes to respect for personal freedom.
(The US Constitution is well written enough that our system has less and less blatant hypocrisy when it comes to personal freedoms, but that's different than broader society actually respecting personal freedom)
I'm using an iPhone but used to use Android. It's surprising to hear that there's not something equivalent to the measly 5GB of online storage that Apple gives. Terrible for backups but good for sharing state from apps.
The confirmation dialog that comes up on the phone looks like it is intended as an end user backup feature, but I've never seen a way to do it without enabling developer mode.
That being said, if anyone knows a way to do full-device backups on the Pixel series phones, let me know.
That reminds me, I just moved 3 Android phones recently (Samsung GN5 broke -> Redmi 4A backup -> Redmi Note 5 replacement), and the only cloud backup that worked were WhatsApp and Line :/ I should backup all my apps for the next time.
My friend was on a list because his father is a high ranking police officer in another country friendly to the US (if you think about something like an executive in the FBI you'll be close). Every time he entered the US, his electronics were seized -- presumably to see if they could get some information about his father (because spying on friendly countries is still a thing). Since he often went to the US to give talks at conferences, he eventually realised that he could mail his laptop to the conference and it would get there every time.
You can, but postal delivery (especially cross border) suffers from a much higher rate of "packet loss" than you keeping your phone with you, and phones can be incredibly useful during travel before you reach your final destination where the phone is supposedly waiting for you (for example, to call/hire transportation, coordinate with people, notify about delays or that you're ok, make alternative arrangements if there are issues, keep track of connections/flight status, not to mention being able to continue to work or use them for entertainment, etc).
Also keep in mind that stuff that crosses the border by mail can also be seized for a variety of reasons.
And of course, there is the issue of price: if you want to ship your phone across the border and not be without it for too long, with insurance & tracking, it's not going to be particularly cheap.
Just put the sd card in a checked-in bag, which is only scanned for large threats (bombs, firearms, animals, and smelly drugs). Anything looking like a little piece of plastic among little pieces of plastic will simply be ignored.
More to the point you only need your contacts and a few other things immediately.
Sample of questions:
- have you ever been associated with Nazi party?
- have you ever been associated with any Cuban government agency?
- do you know anyone that is terrorist?
Etc. Some questions repeat later on, some are constructed different way but ask the same. All questions are only YES or NO. And you clear if you have all NO checked.
To the question, "Do you know anyone that is a terrorist?" I would have to answer, "Probably" or at least, "I don't know." I could not truthfully answer, "No." Neither could just about anybody.
It seems pretty clear to me that it would be improper to detain somebody because their phone was too clean and they do not know if they know anybody who is a terrorist.
Can anybody point to actual case law that supports the claim that such persons are not protected by the constitution? There is a lot of scaremongering in this area, but I haven't seen any actual case law. Of course, I haven't paid much attention either. But the only cases I have seen have been decided in favor of the citizen.
I'm pretty sure there is a limit to how long a Highway Patrol officer can keep me on the side of the road without an arrest or a ticket. I know there is a limit to how long I can be detained by police without being charged. There must be a time limit to how long CBP can take to ask me 800 questions. Or rather, how long they could detain me while I answer 0 questions and repeatedly ask for an attorney.
I am glad there are people willing to spend the time to hold them accountable when it would be easier to just move on and try to forget the whole thing.
That's the argument, in essence (which I mostly agree with, the childish tone notwithstanding).
Except traveling with a blank phone will probably make you more suspicious. What are you trying to hide, citizen?
Two of my previous employers would issue thin-client loaner laptops for travel to countries with espionage concerns.
Even when I travel internationally myself, I rent phones keyed for the destination network and use them in their factory-reset status. No sense in loading up a device with apps and crap for something I'm only going to need for a week.
"Ineffective against a clever adversary" and "effective against loads of real-world criminals" are routinely true at the same time.
I might be wrong, but I thought you didn't have any rights or freedoms at the border?
The feds assert a bullshit 100-mile zone, but that is covers a tremendous swath of the country (and a huge % of citizens), and is untested jurisprudence.
I'm a bit surprised they don't also count everywhere within 100 mi of the doors into the international terminals of every international airport. If you're going to set an arbitrary limit without legislative oversight, why not set it in a way that maximizes your agency's own power?
What's magical about 100 miles, anyway? It seems very suspiciously based on a power of ten of a specific unit of measure, and not on any real distance that may be supported by statistics or analysis. I'd say draw the line where you have a 95% certainty that any persons encountered on the border side of it just crossed over. Which is to say that the border patrol would have to stay on the border side of any major highway, and would need to pay attention to where the boats come and go.
So's all of Seattle, as the entire coastline is deemed to be "border" as well.
> According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
Another question is when a non-citizen officially becomes a "US person" with full constitutional rights. If that person never leaves the 100 mile radius, are they never a US person?
US citizens cannot ultimately be denied entry. US customers and border can seize property(from US citizens) and later make a determination as to whether it should be returned. Abuse by those in power does happen, but in the vast majority of cases where property is allegedly wrongfully seized there is more to the story than is reported to the press initially.
without individualized criminal suspicion, the off-site search of an electronic device taken at a border is unconstitutional. No such suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity existed in the case of Ms. Lazoja giving rise to reasonable suspicion to search and seize her property. Consequently, neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms. Lazoja’s property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment.
To make this argument, the motion mentions some precedent. Most notably was United States v. Kim (page 12):
In Kim, where DHS agents seized a laptop computer at Los Angeles International Airport and later sent it to a laboratory to be copied and searched, the district court found that the
lengthy post-seizure retention of a laptop at a second site, outside the airport, “did not possess the characteristics of a border search or other regular inspection procedures,” and that it “more resembled the common nonborder search based on individualized suspicion, which must be prefaced by the usual warrant and probable cause standards.” Id. at 58 (citing United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1976)). The court in Kim questioned whether the seizure and imaging of a laptop at the border “can accurately be characterized as a border search at all.”
And furthermore that doing so for a cell-phone is particularly egregious; recent supreme court cases strengthen the argument that if we're going to protect laptops then we certainly need to protect cellphones (page 13):
The Supreme Court recently expanded the categorically heightened privacy interests in data located on cell phones, specifically addressing cell phones’ location data.
The motion also makes auxiliary arguments about retention and duration: even if the border search was constitutional, shipping the device off to a lab was not constitutional without a warrant. And even if shipping the device to a lab was constitutional, retaining it for so long was not constitutional. And even if retaining the device for so long was constitutional, retaining the data indefinitely is not constitutional. At least, not without warrants.
the border patrol checkpoint where San Diego county ends and Riverside county begins is around 60 miles from the border
We all know how easy PC is to manufacture though.
Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
Border searches in the US have never required probable cause.
Who's wrong, you or the ACLU?
Which as a thought experiment shows that the 100 miles is not the real problem; a great deal of hassle can occur even if checks were limited to a single mile from the border.
I hope this skyrockets to the supreme court and neuters the Patriot (teehee) Act.
Fundamentally, whether you agree or not, it has been a long-standing tradition that customs (anywhere you go) has the ability to inspect _everything_ that comes through. That is their job. We hear about it more in the USA, but it can and does happen elsewhere.
Now, I believe that this is a bit outdated considering the nature of phones today, but it is what it is.
Now the devil's advocate: Say a tourist returning from x country has that type of p--n that should set off all our alarms. Wouldn't all cloud providers scan the contents and alerted authorities if he posted them online? Maybe encrypting them first might do it but not all take their time to learn.
Phone taps today happen without the cooperation or even the knowledge of the phone company. Every telco is required to have a continuous tap on all communications. That tap must be wired to the authorities and the telco must have no ability to detect when the tap is being monitored. That's the law in the U.S.
They do. It's called a cant.
Now if the trial itself leads to public outcry to change those rules that’d be great but as it stands now I think she’d lose.
Without a supreme court ruling, she'll get nothing and spent a lot on fees.
They are going to not give a crap about this and probably laughed and threw it in the trash can when they saw it.
This case is basically an attempt to see if courts will reconsider after Riley v. California.
I always wish I would get an aggressive BP agent because a lot of my pics are in a prominent "nothing illegal" folder on the first "page" of my phone.
And I've seen a guard in the American consulate in Vancouver berate people who were queued up for their visa interviews, early in the morning. The guy opened the door, said "Good morning!", and then stood there and waited. When nobody responded, he proceeded to tell the crowd that they should "get used to how we do this in America" before they get inside, and basically wouldn't let anyone in until the crowd chorused "Good morning" back in response.
My overall conclusion is that either the hiring practices for all these agencies are intentionally skewed towards that kind of employees, or that the lack of any meaningful responsibility quickly turns people into power-tripping assholes. Perhaps it's both.
Every time I see it I wait for them to get to that hallway between Immigration and Customs and apologize to them, try to assure them that the guy that did it is an asshole, but I'm only there like twice a year... lots of people getting a really shitty first impression of America after their 13 hour exhausting flight.
As an LA resident, I've long held a more general shame that LAX is such a poor airport in general. The whole experience of arriving, taxiing for 20 minutes, waiting an eternity for checked baggage in 1960s civic utilitarian architecture, and then standing on a concrete island outside amidst an armada of cars, trucks, and buses with squealing disc brakes and clouds of exhaust... LAX is an embarrassment to Los Angeles.
Now I hear that our CBP is also irrationally angry and offensive. Yuck.
The last time a guy was screaming "do you want to go to prison for 40 years!? do you!?!?!" to a confused and scared looking chinese lady, presumably because she didn't declare a fucking durian or something.
Also, and I know humor is generally frowned on here, but yelling in the presence of durian is understandable at a certain level, if you've ever tasted or smelled it.
I've never heard anyone on more of a shitheaded mean-spirited power trip than every American customs person I've stood near.
> Every fruit or vegetable must be declared to a CBP Agriculture Specialist or CBP Officer and must be presented for inspection - regardless of its admissibility status. Fresh fruits and vegetables need to be clean and may be prohibited if they have insects or diseases.
Additionally, durian from China is not allowed to be imported.
I don't know what his problem was but I didn't care. I was going to get what I needed regardless.
Meanwhile in Europe, the very instant the plane touches down and finishes braking: ok everybody, you can switch on your phones now.
I can confirm the whole yelling thing at LAX.
I am a US citizen and travel frequently. A few years ago I returned from a trip at LAX, sent to the secondary inspection area, and yelled at by the CBP officer while going through my items. Then came the full media search, which took a few hours.
What made things worse is I am a co-founder of a VPN company and had with me source code, client data, encrypted backups, medical records, and other sensitive data on my phone, laptop and USB drives which I assume they inspected (and copied?) during their search.
I have since passed through LAX on many occasion without further searches, however it was a shocking experience that causes me a great deal of stress to this day whenever I think about going though that airport.
You are not your government. "Every citizen has the duty to protect their country from their government"
I say this as someone from a country that has had several decades of terrible governments.
A few interesting aspects:
* Lazoja is suing over the data, not (just) the physical device (Her phone was already returned to her.) Also, she is making additional arguments that the duration of retention for both the device and the data on it are unreasonable. I hope at least one of these claims succeeds; even if warrantless border searches are permissible, retaining hdd/sdd dumps should not be allowed.
* The motion mentions several times that the device contained persona, private information including "pictures of her in a state of undress, as well as privileged communications with her counsel". She requested all data (and especially this data) be deleted and the response was radio silence.
The TSA is an entity that provides no security, but still manages to degrade the constitution.
As soon as your cellphone, ipad, etc. hit american networks and you have been IDed as a person of interest, they(3 letter agencies) will be combing through your device. Don't fool yourself thinking that devices are secure.
This seems like it's remarkably hard to know. I suppose this may hinge on which model of the iphone she had.
Customs and border control don't xray your stuff unless you're randomly selected. If you're randomly selected, tell them about the pump and CGM and how it can't be xray. Based on my experience with asshole CBP agents, they may "punish" you by throwing all your shit all over the place when they paw through your stuff, or you might get lucky and get just a normal search.
As for your phone, lock it with a password, disable fingerprint unlock, and good luck.
I wanted to link to CBP's help website for medical devices, but their HTTPS certificate is invalid lol. Fuck's sake.
There is nothing "random" in the selection, let's not continue spreading this delusion. It took 4 trips to the US, for that sorry excuse of an AI they use for the selection, to finally decide I wasn't a threat.
If algorithms to generate numbers were all as random as the TSA one, I could probably predict every encryption key out there.
And yet, these are the folks we 'trust' to protect our borders.
Once these backup mechanisms are in place, as a handy side effect, you're also covered for the CBP case.
I mean, we see the articles posted here on hackernews daily about insecure information security, corporate malfeasance, and stories like this where law enforcement steps over legal boundaries.
I dont think its an incredible position to hold that intelligence agencies exploit all 3 of those situations, including any number of undisclosed zero-days, in order to surveil broad swaths of the population.
This is tinfoil hat stuff. Depending on the data and the situation, they need warrants just like everyone else.
I don't believe this is true.
(It was called Alasaad v. Duke when it was filed and is now called Alasaad v. Nielsen.)
The Alasaad case is pending in a different Federal court (the District of Massachusetts).
No democracy will subject people to the indignity of security personnel presuming the right to go through their personal papers and thoughts. It is dehumanizing and shifts the pendulum towards a police state.
They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that time they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted that data). Regardless, the plaintiff argues that keeping the phone for that period of time without a warrant was unconstitutional in the first place.
My understanding is that the data can't be (feasibly) extracted and decrypted from a modern iPhone, though. Isn't that why the FBI made such a big fuss about Apple not "cooperating" to backdoor devices?
I understand the argument about the seizure being unconstitutional, but I'm talking strictly about the cryptographic aspects here.
Of course, it’s Cat and mouse and I believe Apple will or already have squashed that.
The iPhone is the most secure consumer mobile device, but not bulletproof
Also, the motion requests:
Plaintiff Rejhane Lazoja respectfully asks this Court to order Defendants to return her Data, to expunge any copies made of the Data, to disclose all third parties who received and/or retain copies, partial or complete, of the Data, and to provide information about the basis for the
seizure and retention of the property.
If the judge grants all of these requests, it will be interesting to watch what happens with the request:
...return her Data...
If it comes to this, I hope the plaintiff asks the court to know whether the data was decrypted. I.e., if you decrypted my data, you need to return that to me. The original image doesn't suffice.
Maybe "correspondence with council" is the groundwork for this later request? I.e., something along the lines of "I have a right to know what the government now knows about my private correspondence with my council."
The "partial or complete" portion of the request is also relevant for answering this question: the information is legally relevant (and the request reasonable) because some of the correspondence was between the plaintiff and her council, and also because if they shared partial information that almost certainly means they were able to decrypt the data.
The govt's response to the timeframe arguments will also certainly leak some information about the government's capabilities; e.g., I imagine the gov't will argue that 130 days was necessary in order to execute the search, and/or that they need to retain the data so that they might one day be able to execute the search.
They did a hell of a spin job grandstanding about the "impossibility" of cracking iPhones (protip: it never has been), but the FBI only made a stink about it because they can't crack the phones without paying Cellebrite a ton of money to develop new 0-days, which in the end is exactly what they ended up having to do. If Apple would factory-backdoor the things, the FBI could crack them themselves.
Every LE department has been handing seized iPhones over to Cellebrite for years for important enough cases. LE don't want to have to rely on a third-party (and foreign) contractor with a service monopoly anymore.
She's Muslim, and did not want unrelated men to see her without her hijab. Perhaps she was also naked, who knows? But she probably wouldn't say that, out of propriety.
(The fact that she's a member of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, maybe explain why they were hassling her in particular.)
So "state of undress" seems to work quite well... meh, this thread is too deep.
Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has no obligation to provide.
Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.
« Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab, she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men who are not members of her family.
The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her phone.
They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »
For more information,
I also expect this would lead to suspending all US laws guaranteeing human rights to non-citizens at the border. As far as I know, US agencies are not subject to prosecution by international criminal courts, which would make their employees immune to any prospect of human rights violations-related prosecution.
Human rights treaties should be arranged through the U.N. as intended that's why it was chartered, if we are not using it that way that is not the responsibility of U.S. Citizens to solve.
No one would argue that the US' Constitution is binding on any other government but it absolutely is binding on the actions of the US government, and should be so binding anywhere on the planet because the Constitution forms the basis for the US government's very existence.
There are plenty of non-citizens within its borders.
The US Constitution deliberately and carefully uses "citizens" in some spots and "persons" in others. Stuff dealing with voting, for example, uses "citizens", while things like the First and Fifth amendments say "people".
As a result green card holder (sensibly enough) has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a jury trial, can't be made a slave, etc. They don't have a right to vote or run for the Presidency.
People might believe that green-card holders are "special" in that regard because they're on their way to becoming permanent citizens, but they would be mistaken.
Yes, she's a Muslim connected to CAIR so she was probably hoping they'd take her phone to sue, but rights are rights.
What? Nobody has the right to look at my phone.
What about websites with TOSs that state unequivocally that only YOU are allowed to use their website under your account?
"The court, however, raised the bar for a “forensic examination” of the devices, such as using “computer software to analyze a hard drive.” For these more powerful, intrusive and comprehensive searches, which could provide access to deleted files and search histories, password-protected information and other private details, border officials must have a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity — not just a hunch."
So even an Appeals Court gave them the right to do searches. The extensive ones require reasonable suspicion, which I guess can be challenged in court if someone is arrested based on such searches.
ACLU says that the law is unsettled so far and they have sued but "The government claims the authority to search all electronic devices at the border, no matter your legal status in the country or whether they have any reason to suspect that you’ve committed a crime. You can state that you don’t consent to such a search, but unfortunately this likely won’t prevent CBP from taking your phone."