> Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 337 (2000) (concluding Border Patrol agent searched a bag by squeezing it)
> Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324–25 (1987) (holding officer searched stereo equipment by moving it so that the officer could view concealed serial numbers).
The idea seems to be that pushing the power button is what constituted a search, not taking a picture of the lock screen. Presumably if the lock screen was somehow already on at that point (which normally it wouldn't be) then it might be fair game to take a picture without a warrant.
Suppose for a moment we wanted to implement the kind of security that TSA pretends to represent. We'd thus deputize them as part of DoD (or DHS) and they'd carry MP5s and have actual training standards, weight standards, quarterly fitness reports, have to get security clearances etc. etc. They'd do drills at a mock airport, and we'd eventually do away with the "checkpoint" style of security at airports that's really just an invitation for a suicide bomber.
I once saw a TSA employee at LAX insist on putting a kid's balloon from Disneyland, that was clear and 100% see-through, through the X-ray machine. I watched this and, as I suspected, the TSA agent never even considered that because the balloon was filled with helium it of course wouldn't move through the machine on the conveyor belt and it got stuck. "Checkpoint" indefinitely shut down.
Security Theatre, indeed.
They are the cogs that need to make the security theatre run. I would bet that the vast majority of them know for a fact that their job is highly useless and only see it as a way to get some money at the end of the month.
What I still don't understand is how did we get here and why is it still going on even though most people would agree that it's a security theatre.
Why do they need security clearances? For all that Secret-level intel they're getting briefed on? Or because you're under the impression that clearances are "security-ish"?
You want to mitigate "security theater" by making security wildly more dramatic and aimless. Someone needs to do the basic step of checking bags and passengers. That person does not need to be Jason Bourne.
They'd need MP5s in case a group of terrorists attacked the checkpoint, or got caught going through the checkpoint and decided on plan B (just kill as many people in the airport as possible).
They need security clearances to ensure that they're not going to help someone get a bomb onto the plane.
>Why would they need to carry MP5s? Because that's what you've seen in movies?
The MP5 is a "it just works" close battle weapon that is very popular for urban combat and, speaking from experience, is a weapon that is very balanced and is also gorgeous to look at. The greatest critiques against it probably have to do with the fact it's usually chambered in 9mm. Now, HK makes a bunch or other variants but the 9mm is the most popular.
>Why do they need security clearances?
Because I don't want people who harass me to open my baggage in front of them to have questionable contacts that could otherwise be a means for a would-be terrorist (or other state actors since Cold War II just kicked off) to get a bomb onboard an aircraft.
>You want to mitigate "security theater" by making security wildly more dramatic and aimless.
I want to do away with the security theatre, and replace it with a serious organization that is trained and understands what they're doing.
The balloon would float and not stay in contact with the belt.
Which is a much more reasonable thing to ask.
But I suppose I was giving too much benefit of the doubt :)
From what I'm told my grandfather had fun with the cleaning ladies at the pharmacy he worked in by sprinkling flash powder ingredients on the floor, so that when they swept them up together the mix would go off, making a small poof, scaring the cleaning ladies.
That seems pretty similar?
> Judge Coughenour ruled that the police were within their rights to look at the lock screen at the time of Sam’s arrest, as there are circumstances in which a search can be made at the time of an arrest without a warrant.
> Investigators conducting a search later, however, need a warrant, said the judge.
> The police’s examination of Mr. Sam’s phone raises different issues because the examination may have been a search incident to arrest or an inventory search—two special circumstances where the Government does not always need a warrant to conduct a search. Unfortunately, the Court cannot decide whether the police needed a warrant because the circumstances surrounding the police’s examination are unclear.
> The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing the circumstances surrounding Office Shin’s and the Tulalip Police Department’s alleged examinations of Mr. Sam’s phone. That briefing should also address the relevant legal standard for searches incident to arrest and/or inventory searches.
Maybe not government policy, but private companies have gotten serious about encryption to reduce the amount of passive surveilance. Private networks are no longer assumed to be private.
I think you have confused loyalty to the current leadership of US government spy agencies with allegiance to the American people.
That said,I am very glad he did what he did because I believe the basic expectation of privacy surpasses the people's right to have a government they elected that represents the voice of the majority. Democracy and evem the rule of law itself exists to preserve and enable life and liberty.
On the flip side, the intelligence community would argue a governments primary directive is to ensure the security of it's people, and that triumphs democracy.
In the end a government exists the way it does because the military and the rich are allowing it to. They decide who is right. In this case the military's inaction against the NSA means they don't consider their hostile actions against the people as illegitimate or as a rogue insider threat to the constitution. The rich who own coeporatons also stayed in the US to the large part, which means they are OK with what the NSA has been doing against them and their customers,even if it was illegal. If either elements as a collective rejected the NSA's legitimacy the gov's position with the NSA and Snowden's ability to return safely would be different.
The de facto stance of America is that the revelations were not shocking enough to alter the status quo. So post-hoc one could imagine that the exposed NSA could have just been a transparent NSA from the start. But the way the story unfolded, despite not shocking the system deeply, he's still left playing the part of the traitor. He probably did make life more difficult for the NSA though, as I'm pretty sure a lot of people ramped up cybersecurity.
It took me 5 seconds to find this from Pew Research:
>A majority of Americans (54%) disapprove of the U.S. government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts,
Just claiming that people agree with you does not make it so. By your logic the NSA has committed treason because a majority of Americans disapprove of what they're doing.
I have seen different polls that favor the FBI regarding backdooring iphones (to contrast with your poll).
If the law and the people's opinion disagree with their activities then I would classify them as a rogue insider threat group, more like rebellion and sabotage.
The government would get to tell the jury he gave away XYZ classified documents, and he would not be allowed to even mention why and would have no chance of getting that overturned on appeal.
Snowden has said he will come back and stand trial if he is allowed to raise whistleblowing as a defense. The government has not taken him up on that offer.
edit: First source google had to offer: https://whistleblower.org/in-the-news/wsj-op-ed-why-edward-s...
>[M]embers of Congress, journalists and advocacy groups keep repeating the same argument: Mr. Snowden should turn himself in, mount a solid defense and all will be righted at trial.
That’s a fantasy. I served as legal adviser to two high-profile whistleblowers between 2010 and 2013, former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake and former CIA officer John Kiriakou, both charged with espionage. I also witnessed last year’s court-martial of U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning (now known as Chelsea Manning), who faced charges of espionage and aiding the enemy. Here’s a run-through, to the extent that I am allowed to offer, of how such a shadowy proceeding would unfold.
If the government isn't righting its wrongs, it's because you (not necessarily you specifically, but "the people" as a whole) have explicitly put in power the people who are doing the bad things.
This is everybody's fault. Yours included. We all enabled this to happen.
That's the beauty of a democratic system. It clarifies and cuts through to the core of our culture. Americans fear the idea of foreign terrorists more than we fear privacy encroachment, and thus, we were delivered the results of that belief.
The system worked! It represented our wishes perfectly. The problem isn't "them" (the government). It's us.
1) Vote them out
I'm rather a firm believer that option 1 is still on the table and we don't have to resort to likely bloody methods. But in either case it is up to the people in the end. I am not convinced that there's been coalitions formed to actually do #1. I'm not actually convinced most people are upset, even though I think they should be.
Still on us though. Unless we want to see the nation invaded, there really is no one else with standing to address the growing problem.
A class level action is needed. When things reach clearly, can't miss it, can't live with it levels of unacceptable, we may see that happen.
Or, maybe we see just enough placating and theatre to trundle along for decades.
Last time we moved like that, it was the 30's.
People struck the crap out of basically everyone, handing FDR position to go and get the New Deal done. Those strikes and actions were illegal and legal. A whole class in high solidarity acting right out.
His follow on was never seriously discussed and in the decades since, we have seen many moves to prevent a similar scenario from happening again.
What we do not know is whether that history can be repeated.
The response today might just be brutal.
It is all terribly expensive either way too.
> It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.
A democracy doesn't have representation. So while his definition maybe different than what we tend to understand today, neither is he arguing that "republic" is the same as what we mean by "democracy" today.
Protests and social pressure do work with the right amplitude.
Whether that's due to the media's portrail of them in film and TV over the years with their omnipotent powers or just the view that the government is an all seeing entity.
So in most people's view he just leaked the governments methods, not the fact they were doing it (and abusin their power in doing so). Because of this the Government can spin this as him leaking their secret sauce rather than them being in the wrong.
A high percentage of Americans are informed by domestic "news" and that newstainment has declared Snowden to be the bad guy as you said.
Among ordinary people not into politics and or tech, few know his name. If they do, they almost always also talk about him being a traitor, threat, etc.
To take advantage of whistleblower laws (or at least, gain public sympathy as one), the criminality you’re uncovering would need to be far, far worse.
That was completely illegal at the time, and I hope that it still is.
See this for one recent decision indicating that the NSA bulk collection program was both constitutional and legal.
The unfortunate reality is that it falls into a legal grey area and has, in fact, been held by certain courts to be legal.
Which comes back to my original point - any whistleblower who wants to exit with a clean slate really needs to be uncovering unambiguously and horrendously illegal activity. “Possibly illegal” PRISM just wasn’t bad enough for Snowden to get the political or legal protection of public sympathy.
> Which comes back to my original point - any whistleblower who wants to exit with a clean slate really needs to be uncovering unambiguously and horrendously illegal activity.
The issue here is that nothing will ever be “unambiguous and horrendous illegal” enough regarding NSA behaviors, given that the goal post is always moving.
Subjecting himself to the risks of trial would be insane, considering the tremendous amount of illegal things that were done (and continue to be done) to Assange.
Good move on his part given his current scenario.
We are going to end up with some really weird law if we leave all of this up to the supreme court. At this point the dynamic is: congress gives the IC whatever it asks for, and sometimes the supreme court walks them back a little.
We need to get congress to regulate this stuff... pronto.
That’s a pretty bold claim, one which I am not aware of any examples of. High courts of any meaningful definition of such, regardless of country, if truly a legal court with fair rules, generally produce much clearly rules than those create by: general public, elected officials, professional governments employees, interest groups, private parties, etc.
For example, take a few mins, even hours, try drafting what to you would be fair, clear, complete, stand the test of time, etc. — then post it somewhere online, post in to HN, and comment here you have. I’ll review it, post my review online.
Haven't had my phone searched yet but the last two times I've crossed the border in the Niagara area for short ski trips I've had my car searched, been held for an hour, and a bunch of hostility directed my way.
The fear that the next time around they'll force me to unlock my phone and waltz through my Facebook profile etc. means that even after the border closure and lockdown is lifted, I just won't be coming to your country and spending money there anymore.
The key judgement here appears to be whether some action, and or change in the state of the person and their property, made the information available.
Entirely passive means still apply, however briefly.
Did you really just make an account to comment on HN about General Flynn? What's behind that??
Hopefully transparency doesn’t end, even if it means a trial!
"He can't even throw a ball one metre!"
In this case however, the word "Skeezy" displayed on the lock screen was apparently a link that connected the owner to what was being investigated, and so material to the case.
My main point is that while this is a promising decision, it is very far from the law of the land. And, as the original commenter pointed out, even if the 9th circuit upholds this ruling, the 9th circuit is only one circuit among many, and is often viewed as the most liberal circuit and not necessarily representative of the federal judiciary as a whole.
After the 9th Circuit makes their decision, it could still be appealed to the Supreme Court (which I think is the country’s overall direction the root commenter was referring to).
This kind of issue will come up very frequently in court because everyone has a phone, and it’s very easy for a lock screen to contain incriminating notifications. That kind of evidence is often decisive in court, which makes it an attractive/persuasive argument for appeals. Very likely this will end up in Supreme Court, which means decisions in lower courts are less consequential. The lower courts aren’t going to get to decide this one.