![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayneOf course there's the 'absent exigent circumstances' clause inserted, always gotta have that. Regardless, huge step forward for privacy.
This is both complicated and simple. The simple part is that the government has a reasonable interest in preventing some things from entering the country, like drugs, undeclared/untaxed items, etc. But at the same time, our phones have become digital repositories of our lives, and even though it is not a declared constitutionally-protected value, we do have some legal rights to privacy.
From the article: "Just as in Riley, the cell phone likely contains huge quantities of highly sensitive information—including copies of that person’s past communications, records of their physical movements, potential transaction histories, Internet browsing histories, medical details, and more … No traveler would reasonably expect to forfeit privacy interests in all this simply by carrying a cell phone when returning home from an international trip."
Apple introduced a feature in the previous(?) version of their phone operating system that disables the interface port and the facial recognition unlock to tighten security. It is recognized that the government has to go through great lengths to compel you to produce something you know - a password or passcode - versus something you posses - a key to a lockbox or your fingerprint or face, being the key to your phone. By disabling these, your phone is much harder to access since the phone will wipe itself after X number of failed attempts. I believe Android has something similar, but I'm not familiar with their specifics.
A lot of people would simply wipe their phone before re-entering the USA, then reload their contacts from an iCloud backup once they're past Customs and restore everything once they're back home to avoid such things.
A second part of the article is also quite interesting: The court focused on the internet and cloud storage, stating: “Stopping the cell phone from entering the country would not … mean stopping the data contained on it from entering the country” because any data that can be found on a cell phone—even digital contraband—“very likely does exist not just on the phone device itself, but also on faraway computer servers potentially located within the country.” This is different from physical items that if searched without a warrant may be efficiently interdicted, and thereby actually prevented from entering the country."
But I'm not sure what this means for potential laptop searches and siphoning. Best to use solid full-disk encryption and a BIOS password if you're at all concerned about your laptop contents.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/federal-judge-makes-history-holding-border-searches-cell-phones-require-warrant
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/05/31/0439200/federal-judge-makes-history-in-holding-that-border-searches-of-cell-phones-require-a-warrant
This is both complicated and simple. The simple part is that the government has a reasonable interest in preventing some things from entering the country, like drugs, undeclared/untaxed items, etc. But at the same time, our phones have become digital repositories of our lives, and even though it is not a declared constitutionally-protected value, we do have some legal rights to privacy.
From the article: "Just as in Riley, the cell phone likely contains huge quantities of highly sensitive information—including copies of that person’s past communications, records of their physical movements, potential transaction histories, Internet browsing histories, medical details, and more … No traveler would reasonably expect to forfeit privacy interests in all this simply by carrying a cell phone when returning home from an international trip."
Apple introduced a feature in the previous(?) version of their phone operating system that disables the interface port and the facial recognition unlock to tighten security. It is recognized that the government has to go through great lengths to compel you to produce something you know - a password or passcode - versus something you posses - a key to a lockbox or your fingerprint or face, being the key to your phone. By disabling these, your phone is much harder to access since the phone will wipe itself after X number of failed attempts. I believe Android has something similar, but I'm not familiar with their specifics.
A lot of people would simply wipe their phone before re-entering the USA, then reload their contacts from an iCloud backup once they're past Customs and restore everything once they're back home to avoid such things.
A second part of the article is also quite interesting: The court focused on the internet and cloud storage, stating: “Stopping the cell phone from entering the country would not … mean stopping the data contained on it from entering the country” because any data that can be found on a cell phone—even digital contraband—“very likely does exist not just on the phone device itself, but also on faraway computer servers potentially located within the country.” This is different from physical items that if searched without a warrant may be efficiently interdicted, and thereby actually prevented from entering the country."
But I'm not sure what this means for potential laptop searches and siphoning. Best to use solid full-disk encryption and a BIOS password if you're at all concerned about your laptop contents.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/federal-judge-makes-history-holding-border-searches-cell-phones-require-warrant
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/05/31/0439200/federal-judge-makes-history-in-holding-that-border-searches-of-cell-phones-require-a-warrant
no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 11:39 pm (UTC)Hopefully it won't go before the SCOTUS. I get a feeling they would quickly over rule it. :o
Hugs, Jon
no subject
Date: 2023-06-05 09:30 pm (UTC)Several courts have made similar rulings against warrantless searches, it's also pretty much guaranteed that it will ultimately go to the SCOTUS. The more courts that rule against them, the more likely that the Supes will uphold them. And this is a pretty well-reasoned decision.
no subject
Date: 2023-06-06 12:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-06 01:24 am (UTC)While they've made some decisions that I decidedly do not like, they've made some that I've thought were good.
no subject
Date: 2023-06-06 01:36 am (UTC)Oh, yay!
Date: 2023-06-01 02:30 am (UTC)Re: Oh, yay!
Date: 2023-06-05 09:30 pm (UTC)Agreed!
no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 02:58 am (UTC)