Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
from the [Oprah-voice]-YOU'RE-GETTING-A-PHONE-SEARCH!-AND-YOU'RE-GETTING-A-PHONE dept
The Constitution -- which has always been malleable when national security interests are in play -- simply no longer applies at our nation's borders. Despite the Supreme Court's finding that cell phone searches require warrants, the DHS and CBP have interpreted this to mean it doesn't apply to searches of devices entering/leaving the country.
For the past 15 years, the government has won 9/10 constitutional-violation edge cases if they occurred within 100 miles of our borders -- a no man's land colloquially referred to as the "Constitution-free zone." But the pace of device searches has increased exponentially over the last couple of years. The "border exception" is no longer viewed as an "exception" -- something to be deployed only when customs officers had strong suspicions about a person or their devices. Now, it's the rule, as NBC News reports.
Data provided by the Department of Homeland Security shows that searches of cellphones by border agents has exploded, growing fivefold in just one year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016.
According to DHS officials, 2017 will be a blockbuster year. Five-thousand devices were searched in February alone, more than in all of 2015.
Given the current state of immigration policy, this will get a whole lot worse before it gets better… if it ever does. Expanding government power is easy. Contracting it is almost impossible.
In practical terms, boots-on-the-ground travelers are being subjected to intrusive searches just because there's nothing effectual in the law to prevent it. Asserting your rights at the border is a non-starter. You simply don't have any. No one's going to be playing Twenty Quasi-Relevant Questions with travelers hoping to luck into consent. Officers and agents are seizing and searching devices by force.
A couple who had traveled to Canada twice in a period of three days were subjected to invasive device searches both time. The second time much more force was applied to ensure compliance.
Three days later, they returned from another trip to Canada and were stopped again by CBP.
"One of the officers calls out to me and says, 'Hey, give me your phone,'" recalled Shibly. "And I said, 'No, because I already went through this.'"
The officer asked a second time..
Within seconds, he was surrounded: one man held his legs, another squeezed his throat from behind. A third reached into his pocket, pulling out his phone. McCormick watched her boyfriend's face turn red as the officer's chokehold tightened.
Then they asked McCormick for her phone.
"I was not about to get tackled," she said. She handed it over.
The coercion doesn't have to be a chokehold. It can just be the fact that government agents stand between you and your home and aren't willing to let you get back to the part of the country where your rights still exist without you handing over PINs and passwords.
On February 9, Haisam Elsharkawi was stopped by security while trying to board his flight out of Los Angeles International Airport. He said that six Customs officers told him he was randomly selected. They demanded access to his phone and when he refused, Elsharkawi said they handcuffed him, locked him in the airport's lower level and asked questions including how he became a citizen. Elsharkawi thought he knew his rights and demanded access to legal counsel.
"They said if I need a lawyer, then I must be guilty of something," said Elsharkawi, and Egyptian-born Muslim and naturalized U.S. citizen. After four hours of questioning in detention, he unlocked his smartphone and, after a search, was eventually released. Elsharkawi said he intends to sue the Department of Homeland Security.
This is how certain government agents and agencies view constitutional rights: as luxuries only needed by people with something to hide. This mindset -- combined with Trump's "gloves off" approach to immigration enforcement -- helps explain the 5,000 device searches in the last 30 days. Device searches were always considered intrusive, despite the Constitution-free aspect of US borders. These were saved for criminal suspects and watchlisted travelers. Now, it's everyone.
The only good news to come out of this is a potential change in applicable laws. Sen. Ron Wyden is introducing a bill to create a warrant requirement for device searches at the border. Unfortunately, it's being introduced into an ecosystem now streamlined to reject affirmations of existing rights. If it somehow makes it to the President's desk without being amended into uselessness, there's almost zero chance Donald Trump won't veto it. Given the current makeup of Congress, it's unlikely there's enough support for a bill that might give "bad hombres" more rights to override a veto.
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: 4th amendment, border searches, cbp, constitution free zone, device searches, dhs, privacy
Reader Comments
The First Word
“In contrast, what does it take for citizens to change the law?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiping phone
Sure, border agents can hassle you for any reason or no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiping phone
So the Courts, Presidents, and Congress will not obey the 4th Amendment nor Constitution (?) And Ron Wyden, who has accomplished nothing in last 45 years, is our primary hope of justice ??
How's that NCAA March Madness lookin' ?
Serfs need not worry about their rulers' rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiping phone
I prefer Pyromania.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiping phone
If you have to come to the US and have to have a phone I'd suggest picking up a cheap, temporary one before entering the US. It might get you flagged as 'suspicious' to bring a 'new' phone, but if they're that interested in you you were probably screwed anyway, and if they do search/steal/destroy it there won't be anything for them to find.
(As an aside it just struck me, again, how insane it is to be recommending that people avoid an entire country, and telling them that if they absolutely have to go there to expect the absolute worst and prepare accordingly. Ah the insanity that is the current USG...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
The Overton window is widening.
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
It has actually become easier to travel without any electronic devices, purchase new when over there and just throw them in the bin when leaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiping phone
If you're rich. But in that case, customs won't be a problem anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiping phone
"Oh, everybody knows you have to wipe your phone when going to the USA or China, or North Korea".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiping phone
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic-devices-its-compli cated
We can hope that maybe someone who is not in a vulnerable position (wrt citizenship, employment, family, finances, or anything else) is able/willing to challenge this in court.
But we know (1) the people most likely to be targeted for abuse are the people worst equipped to fight back and (2) there's no guarantee a court challenge would prevail.
This is all such bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiping phone
I also have no plans to surrender my password to CBP. (Easy for me to say now, I know. I hope I'd manage to commit to that when confronted with the possibility of my phone being seized and me being detained for a day or two.)
But then I have the privilege of knowing that I'm unlikely to be targeted by CBP in the first place, not because of any special virtue I have, but simply because of my name and my appearance. Others aren't so fortunate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Green card
I am going to delete the phone when I land and restore it when I get home.
It's not that I have anything to hide as much as I don't trust them with the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Green card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Green card
Also i could set it up as a clean phone. I've used some people's iPhones that look like they could have come directly from the Apple store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Green card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Green card
1. AAA
2. ACLU
...
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Green card
4. Edward Snowden
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory reminder for persons outside the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory reminder for persons outside the US
If you can't go there illegally, you probably shouldn't go there at all.
For safety of travelers I'd recommend removing the qualifier.
If you're not in the US already, and you don't absolutely have to come here physically, for your own safety and security do not come to the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory reminder for persons outside the US
This is definitely true, because I have a friend who has been getting fucked over by the process for more than 30 years now.
Conversely.
"The US strongly encourages illegal immigration."
The system needs fixing, but the illegals need kicking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our towns school regularly went across the border with busloads of kids, all their supplies and mentors/coaches to events in Canada. All we did was make a phone call and the bus and everyone in it was waved thru both on the Canadian side and the US side. The Customs agents were usually very nice and professional, the Border Patrol acted like they were full fledged police protecting the citizens of the US from a full scale invasion.
Luckily the school had a staff member that was related to one of the customs management and they usually dealt with everything for us. The Border Patrol really do act like they are gods right hand men. I have respect for customs, none for the border patrol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I have to stand in line and figure out what items of clothing/electronics/etc. are required to be in what bag/bin at this border crossing and nervously watch my passport as it leaves my hand and goes who-knows-where before being reluctantly returned to me.
That said, I agree that customs is rarely a problem; US border patrol is the big man in the show, followed by TSA employees. *Sometimes* the immigration desk can be an issue, but they usually call USBP or TSA to do their dirty work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's gotten worse over the years, especially once Passports were required. Still the U.S. has no right to go searching anyone electronic devices. I bet after all these many times, not a single Terrorist anything has ever been found. Really, who would be that dumb? Our rights have been taken away from us year after year and people have kept quite. It's all in the name of Child Protections or Terrorists and BOOM, you lose a few more rights. Until at such time it's something YOU care about and then it's to late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In contrast, what does it take for citizens to change the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A town ordinance is below a state statute, a state statute is below a federal statute, a federal statute is below a state constitution within that state, a state constitution is below the federal constitution.
If anyone at any level decides the laws don't apply to them, that person is a criminal. If the only reason a federal agency can ignore federal laws is they have the power to squash anyone who complains, then we have might makes right, not the rule of law.
In a might makes right system, if you can kill someone it's not murder because your might makes you right. If the feds have gone rogue, what reason is there for anyone to obey any law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the first paragraph in article 6:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Granted, that was when crossing into the Soviet Union. But the American border is starting to look really familiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Steganography would not have been of any use; no-one of consequence in the Soviet Union in the '80s would have had the equipment to extract data from audio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: neat
"As of the June 2007 edition of the DSS C&SM, overwriting is no longer acceptable for sanitization of magnetic media; only degaussing or physical destruction is acceptable"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: neat
Phones typically don't use magnetic media for internal storage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's correct. Once you cross the border and touch US soil you're out of the grey zone. It becomes black & white: You must let them search your phone. That's the point of the "Constitution-free zone." Refuse, and you face detainment and violence.
As for encrypting your phone, Techdirt has reported on one suspected criminal who has now many months in jail for refusing to unlock his phone, based on the suspicion of incriminating evidence on it. And that's without being in a "Constitution-free zone."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can get a court order for you to unlock your device. And when you refuse they can find you in contempt and jail you until you fully comply with the order.
Techdirt: The Fifth Amendment Vs. Indefinite Jailing: Court Still No Closer To Deciding On Compelled Decryption
Sixteen+ months and counting in jail. And that's without a Constitution-free border zone involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, it's not "jail", it's just indefinite "detention".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, no. You have to make it to at least 100 miles away from any US border. And most of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They hate us for our freedoms. Ergo, the course of action is to eliminate our freedoms. No freedoms = peace and security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
Just wanted to point this gem out. Wow. Just... wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
- U.S. News and World Report, 10/14/85
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
"You don't find that many honest politicians. If they're honest, they're not going to be a politician for long..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'We in the legal system do not make mistakes. Ever.'
"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
Talk about the kind of mindset that ensures a steady stream of incarcerations, and to hell with that whole 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' rot.
"You're under investigation, therefore you're guilty, therefore your rights don't matter, as those are to protect innocent people, and if you were innocent you wouldn't be under investigation, therefore those protections don't apply to you."
Enough circular reasoning to make anyone dizzy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only criminals invoke their rights, eh?
Republicans won't appoint an Attorney General unless he actually wipes his ass with the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even though I am a US Citizen
I still travel with a burner phone and laptop. I will NOT risk my real phone or computer at any border. All my files are on MY server running in MY home. Nothing in the cloud. I carry a secure USB stick with the Bill of Rights and Constitution as the only files on it. Just to piss 'em off when they ask for it to be unlocked.
And here I thought American Servicemen fought against "Papers Please" countries. Now we are one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even though I am a US Citizen
I carry a secure USB stick with the Bill of Rights and Constitution as the only files on it.
Careful there, you might end up being charged for threatening the welfare of official US agents carrying subversive and confrontational documents like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even though I am a US Citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're independently wealthy and would like to help other people who aren't, you could file suit (but while at the border/around CBP, act in a way that makes your suit more likely to succeed).
Or you could just fuck with the authorities. But that doesn't help anyone else who isn't wealthy, who might be subject to violence based on their background, who has family, or who is otherwise vulnerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long until
Destroy all their data readers as a form of civil protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long until
But first put up a plausible refusal to let them read the device at all. Surrender it before they get too serious, but give them the chance (if they were wise enough to take it) not to plug in the circuit killer. "I don't consent to this search. I disagree with your decision to read it, but will not interfere if you attempt to read it without consent."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long until
I'll take "How to get Border Agents fired" for 300 Alex. Probably wishful thinking though sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How long until
"Really? I'll be the judge of that!"
"I'm warning you right now, that phone has dangerous stuff on it!"
"Give me that phone! Here, let me plug it in right here...what's that clicking...OH, SH..........!!!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How long until
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How long until
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long until
Sounds like a good way to ensure a cavity search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haystack Battle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haystack Battle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about time that we start using phones with plausible deniability.
Phones with encryption that looks like junk data in unused sectors.
Of course, then they'll just have to detain anyone and everyone who happens to just have a clean phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to be quite so blatant.
"It's not a phone, it's a _spare battery_.
"No, I can't turn it on. I can only connect it to a _compatible device_ via a custom USB port.
"No, I do not consent to your downloading files from it without a warrant.
"I cannot guarantee that a non-compatible device can read ROM or Flash devices on it. If you don't have a Multics-compatible file system, I believe that you will not be able to access any files stored on this device.
(There's a hidden compartment inside, containing a micro-SSD card. The battery is wired to release the magic smoke from a standard USB port.)
Afterwards:
"DUH! It's a BATTERY. Do you people not have batteries here? It was a battery before, like I said before; it's still a battery. It can't stop being a battery.
"It contains ENERGY in the form of ELECTRICITY. Does you people not know what ELECTRIC means? It spills down wires....
"Oh, what's the use? Look, just pay me for my battery and we can all go about our business....do you have a business or do you just stand around looking for lamp sockets to stick your tongue in?
"Mutter, mutter ... bringing in illiterate islamic peasants would raise the average IQ of this place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have other countries do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedoms lost are seldom recovered
You want change? Speak the only language they understand: money. Boycott travel, our own self-imposed travel ban. Not for work, not vacation, nada... Grind them to an economic halt and make sure they know why. Some will be fired or have to vacation locally but those are small prices to pay if we get back a single freedom peacefully. I haven't flown since the TSA became a thing because I fucking refuse to voluntarily give up my dignity as a human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need to see the good side of it:
I'm actually not sure that those device searches aren't actually saving lives because of people increasingly choosing to leave all their devices with incendiary Lithium ion accumulators at home rather than let them get strip-searched at the border.
These days they are more likely than terrorists to bring down a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help illegal entry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]