Border Patrol Stops Journalist From Heading To Dakota Pipeline Protests, Searches All Of His Electronic Devices
from the border-town-of-Chilling-Effects,-USA dept
If you're having trouble quelling dissent at ground zero, maybe the next move is to limit the coverage. We've already seen local authorities issue arrest warrants for journalists covering the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Now, we're seeing something more proactive, courtesy of Customs and Border Protection.
Award-winning Canadian photojournalist Ed Ou has had plenty of scary border experiences while reporting from the Middle East for the past decade. But his most disturbing encounter was with U.S. Customs and Border Protection last month, he said.
On Oct. 1, customs agents detained Ou for more than six hours and briefly confiscated his mobile phones and other reporting materials before denying him entry to the United States, according to Ou. He was on his way to cover the protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline on behalf of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation.
Welcome to the Constitution-Free Zone, Canadians! Whatever protections you might have on your side of the border matter just as little as the protections we have on our side. You have to travel ~100 miles inland before your rights are respected. For Ed Ou, this meant a lengthy detention and an attempted strip search of his electronics -- all before being told he wasn't going any further than the Canadian border. From the letter the ACLU sent to the CBP demanding a few answers [PDF]:
After Mr. Ou applied for admission to the United States at the Vancouver airport, he was redirected to secondary inspection, where he clearly identified himself as a journalist. CBP officers nonetheless detained him for more than six hours and subjected him to four separate rounds of intrusive interrogation. The officers questioned him at length about his work as a journalist and his prior professional travel in the Middle East. They also questioned him extensively about dissidents and “extremists” whom he had encountered or interviewed as a journalist. Mr. Ou answered the agents’ questions fully and forthrightly and explained many times that he was a journalist whose credentials and background could be verified easily. The officers declined to inspect his press credentials.
CBP officers also conducted an unduly intrusive search of Mr. Ou’s belongings. In the course of this search, they made photocopies of his personal papers, including of pages from his handwritten personal diary. They also confiscated, examined, and searched—or at least attempted to search—his mobile phones. The CBP officers asked Mr. Ou to unlock the three mobile phones he carries to enable him to communicate in different locations worldwide. When Mr. Ou declined with an apology, citing his ethical obligation as a journalist to protect his newsgathering materials, including his confidential sources, the officers removed the phones from Mr. Ou’s presence. When the officers returned the phones to him several hours later, it was evident that their SIM cards had been temporarily removed because tamper tape covering the cards had been destroyed or altered.
The CBP's statement in response to journalists' questions is nothing more than the expected assertion that these actions were all within its rights. As it points out, anyone arriving in the US is subject to additional searches, which can encompass the contents of their electronic devices. The CBP generally has to have an articulable reason (but not anything rising to the level of "suspicion") to do this, but a large majority of these intrusive searches go unchallenged and chanting "national security" -- as the CBP does here -- tends to make most complaints evaporate.
“Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation's laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.,” the statement said.
The CBP, however, seems less sure of its reasons for detaining the photojournalist. One agent said Ou was a "person of interest" wanted by an unnamed law enforcement agency, while another said his "person of interest" status had nothing to do with his detainment. That same officer also told Ou that his refusal to unlock his phones wasn't going to help convince the CBP that he should be let into the country.
It did, however, scare up some paperwork citing a nonexistent legal authority for its refusal to admit him into the US.
The officers did provide Mr. Ou with a Form I-275 Withdrawal of Application for Admission stating that he had been found inadmissible pursuant to Section 212(a)(7)(A)(I)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). However, that is not a valid citation to the INA; indeed, the cited subsection does not exist. Section 212(a)(7)(A), moreover, pertains to those who seek admission as “immigrants”—persons intending to reside permanently in the United States. Mr. Ou plainly was not seeking admission as an “immigrant,” and neither the Form I-275 nor the questions the CBP officers asked Mr. Ou suggested any basis for concluding otherwise.
The ACLU's letter goes on to point out that the CBP now has copies of data it perhaps acquired illegally and should make an immediate effort to destroy/purge anything it collected during its chilling little fishing expedition. It also asks that the CBP cough up the real reason it decided to detain Ou and search his devices, considering those performing the search couldn't be bothered to come up with a coherent legal theory or an applicable statute to justify the intrusion.
This Constitutionless free-for-all at the borders is already a concern for US citizens, especially as the term "border" includes anything 100 miles inland. It's even more of a concern for journalists -- whether US citizens or not -- who can be prevented from covering controversial events for apparently wholly imaginary reasons.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dakota pipeline, ed ou, free speech, journalism, protests
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
US Border Crossing 101
First, probably shouldn't enter the US at all if it can be avoided, as this and similar stories make clear. If you happen to be on a 'list' somewhere for whatever reason, you look 'suspicious', or a border agent just feels like some easy entertainment at your expense you're going to have a bad or really bad couple of hours, and even then you're not guaranteed to be allowed in anyway.
Second, if you must come to the US never bring anything you're not willing to lose.
Buy a cheap temporary phone, new journal and/or a cheap tablet to do your work on. Do not bring your normal device, because the only thing stopping it from being searched, and/or a demand that you unlock it and provide access is the whim of the border agent(s).
Similarly do not carry any large amount of cash if at all possible, as that is likewise one decision away from being stolen from you, either at the border or within the country by 'law enforcement', and your odds of getting any of it back are slim to none, especially if you only have a limited time to do so.
Third, it's important to remember that as far as the border agents are concerned you have no rights. They can and will do anything they please, secure in the knowledge that so long as they claim 'Because terrorists/National Security!' the courts will back them up and agree that they acted properly.
Having the number for a lawyer written down and/or memorized is probably a good idea, though don't expect you will be allowed to contact them in time to prevent any violations of the rights you thought you had, meaning it will mostly be an after-the-fact discussion if one takes place, where they can tell you that you've got essentially no chance at getting any form of restitution, but if you've got the money you can at least try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Border Crossing 101
I dunno, not entering the US is suspicious behavior. CPB should probably investigate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Border Crossing 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Border Crossing 101
I dunno, not entering the US is suspicious behavior.
Yes, take Kim Dotcom for instance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Border Crossing 101
Also don't bring your bank cards. As Techdirt has reported, if American police decide to suspect you of some type of crime, they're no longer limited to seizing any cash or goods on hand. They're now equipped with ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, which allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards right at the roadside.
Of course the INS has demonstrated that a Canadian showing up at the border can be kidnapped to third country for 11 months of torture - just to check out vague suspicions - so robbing bank accounts at badgepoint is pretty minor stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Border Crossing 101
But Syria is no longer accepting torture-for-hire contracts from the US government, since the last batch obviously got them no favors in return. However, the US-backed overthrow of Assad could easily change all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Border Crossing 101
"Second, if you must come to the US never bring anything you're not willing to lose."
Like your freedom!!!, You disease carrying CANADIAN SOCIALISTS!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Border Crossing 101
There's a joke from back in 2008 when the Republicans were nationalizing all the Wall Street investment banks, bailing out a great many other banks, and bailing out the auto makers:
The Conservatives in Canada are roughly equivalent to the more liberal Democrats in the US.
The Liberal Party is further to the left.
MUCH further to the left we have the have the unabashedly socialist NDP. They want to do things like spending huge amounts of public money to manipulate the national economy, and nationalize or take a large financial stake in banks and some large corporations.
This makes them roughly equivalent to the Republican Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CBP to ACLU:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Border Crossing 101
Unfortunately they would claim that any of the above is suspicious.
Cheap new phone - suspicious.
New journal that is entirely or mostly empty is suspicious.
I mean, breathing is suspicious.
And anyone who is not a US citizen wanting to enter the US is suspicious in the current climate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Border Crossing 101
Don't forget that not appearing suspicious is highly suspicious. Must be specifically trained to look that not-suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Border Crossing 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Border Crossing 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Border Crossing 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought Police.
An "increasingly digital world" has nothing to do with the goods, materials, and persons you're supposed to be inspecting at the border. You're abusing legitimate physical authority to inspect, control, and gather travelers' intangible private information.
Are you really deciding what information is allowed into the country? Does the Government want to admit to a censorship scheme of that wide scale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100 miles
Then again, the way the constitution is being treated by all law enforcement agencies, and in many cases by the courts, just where are the constitutionally protected zones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100 miles
Like all International airports in the world, oh that's right non US citizens have no constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100 miles
Right next to the free speech zones _obviously_...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100 miles
The homes of congress members?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in·al·ien·a·ble
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
"freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in·al·ien·a·ble
the guy is a Canadian citizen. The CBP of America has no oath or obligation to observe his rights. The US Government was created to Guard OUR liberty, not theirs!
If foreigners get rights just by hitting American soil then the courts will be busy as fuck issuing arrest warrants for each at every member of an invading Army.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in·al·ien·a·ble
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: in·al·ien·a·ble
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Jefferson limited it even further to *white* men only. Jefferson was a slave owner. And yet, there are many today that believe that Jefferson was *still* too liberal with freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in·al·ien·a·ble
The Bill of Rights does not apply only to US citizens. Since the fourth is most relevant to this discussion:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You could argue that "the people" means the citizens of this country, but I think that's misguided.
I'm sure you wouldn't say a foreign national visiting the US has no obligation to obey US law while here. Why, then, do we not have an obligation to obey US law when dealing with him or her?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17008-fourth-amendment-and-foreigners-do es-it-apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: in·al·ien·a·ble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the most vague and bullshit claim I have ever heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Motherfuckin' Eagles, bitchez ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Border Patrol can demand to see where you're planning to stay in the country and require the address. If he couldn't show them any hotel reservations or other planned destinations, that would have been considered highly suspicious.
Not to mention, if they got access to his texts or email, they could have spotted email reservations or messages indicating his plans. Lying about it would have legitimized their suspicions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious Questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Questions...
How does a non-citizen have any rights? They have privileges based on treaties and agreements with other nations only.
Here is the preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It looks like only "We the People of the United States" are the ONLY people with rights when it comes to dealing with our Government. Which additionally means that there is no such thing as a Constitution Free Zone which was dreamed up out of thin air. Only Citizens have rights in regards to the US Government and those rights are in force regardless of location, including the ocean or right smack dab in the middle of Iraq! If you are an American then the American government is sworn to uphold the Constitution in all cases!
It's funny how far we have fallen, we seek the utter destruction of this nation and do not know that we are doing it from the looks of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Questions...
If you're asking that question, then you should consider the question in the context of "turnabout is fair play."
That is, should Americans have any rights when visiting other countries? If mere vague suspicions lead to Americans experiencing anything from having their electronics searched or seized to being shipped to a third country for months of torture, should America have any right to complain?
More importantly, what of Americans in America? In the couple years after 9/11 the US kidnapped over 100 people on EU soil alone, shipped them to other countries, and tortured many of them. Releasing many years later with an "er, never mind."
If another country kidnaps an American off an American street and ships them overseas for torture, should America have any right to complain? If it's claimed that the American was suspected of ties to crime or terrorism or the company that made the drones they object to flying over their country - and a decade later there's still no trial - should America be able to say anything other than "You're right; that's how WE handle it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Questions...
And yes, people should really fucking consider the consequences of putting their lives into the hands of a fucked up government.
And when you leave your country, you have to accept the risk that you will be screwed by it.
"If another country kidnaps an American off an American street and ships them overseas for torture, should America have any right to complain?"
This is completely different. But yea lets ask this question. Since we don't even come to the rescue of a people having their rights crushed in the court of law then why even bother with it? You are screwed no matter where you go, but I can say this. If the ACLU has time and resources to waste on a foreigner when there are too many innocents here suffering then the ACLU can kiss my fucking ass because it is clear their priorities are all fucked up and serves the wrong agenda!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Questions...
[Citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Questions...
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the citizens of the US. To an extent it recognizes rights all people are considered to have (insert caveats about the time of the founding fathers), but primarily it specifies and limits the powers of the federal government. For example, the 1st doesn't say that US citizens have the right to freedom of religion, speech and assembly, it says the government may not make any laws abridging such rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Questions...
This really should be taught and emphasized more. Some might think it's a pointless distinction of philosophical navel-gazing, but it really is an important philosophical underpinning of the US Constitution and how the founding fathers envisioned the role of the government in the lives of the citizenry.
I just realized, reading your's and another's comments, that I have also fallen into the fallacy of thinking in terms of the US Constitution granting me rights. But it is really specifying the relationship the other way around. It is a statement recognizing that I as a human being have unalienable rights, and a limit on the government's authority in how far and under what circumstances it may infringe on those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Serious Questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Questions...
Ahh, so that explains why cops think it's OK to violate people's rights. "It's OK, I'm just beating the crap out of this guy. I'm not passing any laws."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not news
The real CBP news will be when they decide they have the right and duty to set up check points up to 100 miles on the other side of the border.
I realize no nation would probably allow that to happen, but I'm sure there's some CBP employees that would love to try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not news
Oh, that's right, because they have different laws and rights are GIVEN over there and not considered sacred like they are here... well I take that bake, America USED to consider them sacred.
And no, other countries treat American citizens just like they want to... as tourist money bags to be over charged so they can drop off America dollars into their economies.
Go and try peddling that shit in Syria in front of the Royalty and see how far that bullshit gets you!
As said earlier, a foreign nationals safety and security are only viable through treaty and agreements between nations. While I have no problem with generally being amiable to foreigners, they should never be so fool as to claims rights only secured to the Citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not news
You'd still get the legal protections given to UK citizens.
Nonsense. Laws and rights are at least as sacred in the UK as in America.
So you don't think that America should hold itself to a higher standard than the Syrian dictatorship?
In any case I'm talking about the more than 100 people America kidnapped from EU soil, not from some 3rd world hellhole. Those treaties and agreements exist, and were ignored.
If Italy or Germany or the UK kidnaps an American off an American street, and tortures and holds him indefinitely without trial, should THAT country be allowed to dismiss it with "the American doesn't get to claim rights secured only to OUR citizens?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not news
While there are certain rights, benefits, perks and responsibilities pertaining to being a citizen (such as voting), the rule of law should apply fairly and equally to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not news
While *I* wouldn't, there are certainly those who would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news
Where in the US constitution does it afford protections to non-citizens?
If people visiting don't get the protection of the laws, exactly why should they follow them other than brute force, 'We'll kill you if you don't'?
Or, put another way, if the USG and/or it's agencies aren't going to respect the laws, why should anyone else?
If you want to apply the law to someone you don't get to do so halfway, only applying the punishments without also applying the protections. Saying that people visiting from other countries are bound by the US laws but government agencies interacting with them aren't is just a wee bit hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not news
They already do this in Canada; CBP has a US zone inside each Canadian international airport. In fact, this story took place at Vancouver International Airport -- NOT on US soil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news
For example a decade ago, running out of space on its side of the Peace Bridge, America's Homeland Security decided to move its screening process to the Canadian side. And then demanded that the Canadian government allow it to fingerprint anyone turned away.
The Canadian government refused. In Canada no-one can be fingerprinted without giving permission, unless that person is being charged with a criminal offence.
I have to wonder how much the Canadian journalist's treatment required a false assumption of American authority over him. If he figured out early that he wouldn't be allowed into the US, I suspect that he could have simply ended any interrogation or search (assuming that he still had his phones by that point) by simply walking away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news
Things like sitting along highways and pulling vehicles over for no reason other than to look through them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inalienable rights apply to all men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inalienable rights apply to all men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inalienable rights apply to all men
So some seem to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inalienable rights apply to all men
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social contract failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Social contract failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do not know that we are doing
this government knows exactly what it is doing. it just can't seem to disable what our forefathers built fast enough to suit them.
those men and women knew what they were doing. where they came from, they knew the dangers, and they built a nation that wouldn't be easy to defeat. even from within.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leader of the "free" World
This story has yet to appear in the mass media (other than the Washington Post). Journalists should be screaming from the roof tops about this but I suppose when most of them are just scribes to what ever dribble the "secret government source" hands them, we shouldn't be surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leader of the "free" World
I wonder how far it will go and if it will implode on itself someday. Will we have ex-republicans someday trying to hide their past like ex-nazis do today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leader of the "free" World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leader of the "free" World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preclearance is voluntary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Preclearance is voluntary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could use the usual excuse of "he's not white, therefore we murdered him and stole his wallet".
Oh sorry every single camera in the area malfunctioned just before 12 officers shot him from 300foot away in the back and then stamped on his corpse to be sure he was dead.
I mean, we stopped an evil terrorism plot. Information classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up against the wall scumbag
This did not last long, of course. I do not recall the reason. Probably a reversal due to some staged threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]