Rights To Your Device At The Border

From what i've gathered, American citizens can say no to unlocking their phone for a border agent. That person will have their phone confiscated and will be delayed but in both cases not for ever. If you feel like wasting time you can maintain your privacy. What can you do if you are NOT a citizen? Do they have to right to force me to unencrypt my phone? If my phone is locked via fingerprint do they have the right to force me to use my body against my wishes? That sounds a little dramatic but what am I allowed to do?

Other urls found in this thread:

theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkannavar-detained-cbp-phone-search-trump-travel-ban
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>really want to get into the country
>have to comply

If you're visiting a country to see a cute girl or there for work, of course you're going to comply with everything. You just can't win.

>force me to use my body against my wishes

Will there be intimacy or dinner at least?

whats the source for the boder agents go through your phone panic?

i thought i saw that kind of shit on some canadian border tv show where they only went through some dumb fags phone but i don't remember if it's like they had to give the passcode to it

I'll pastebin it if you really care but here was a big red flag recently. NASA employee with phone holding private company files was forced to surrender his open device to agents.

theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkannavar-detained-cbp-phone-search-trump-travel-ban

Non-citizens have no rights at the border.

On the other hand, illegals have all constitutional rights once they get inside the United States.

See Shaughnessy v. United States and Zadvydas v. Davis.

They're gonna start a war.
Every person they trained swore to fight on the constitution's side, not theirs.
I'm interested to see how this plays out.

so it's all a bureaucratic mess where government officials can do whatever the fuck they want and use any kind of interpretation of whatever legal document most preferably their own.

Well whatever. Tough shit.

d-do you know where I can find this cute clam?

You're allowed to go back where you came from.

>What can you do if you are NOT a citizen?
Non-citizens have some of the same rights but not a full set. For example, US citizens have a right to vote and entry into the US.
>Do they have to right to force me to unencrypt my phone?
Legal distinction - Government agents don't have "rights" but "authority." A person has rights.
With that out of the way, CBP and ICE can order you to unencrypt your phone if they have probable cause/a warrant. Even non-citizens have a right against self-incrimination and "secure in person and things." However...
>If my phone is locked via fingerprint do they have the right to force me to use my body against my wishes?
IIRC, finger prints are not a part of rights to bodily autonomy (which would require a warrant). Same as with the sound of your voice, style of your handwriting, etc. fingerprints are considered "held out" to the public. If you want to be secure, in my personal opinion, I suggest you lock it with a passcode, gesture, etc.

And the right to privacy of personal documents as protected by the fourth amendment?

Hey thanks I really appreciate this.

Yes and no. CBP and ICE are supposedly held to the same standards but it is hard to have standing in court to challenge it when you're not a US citizen and already removed from the country.

So our government has just completely forgotten what the word inalienable means then?

I swore to give my life to protect the rights set forth in the constitution, they can fucking shoot me before they go through my phone.

>america
>privacy
Heh, good one

>So our government has just completely forgotten what the word inalienable means then?
Of course not. The government is always torn between concerns for security and balancing expectations of privacy. The government is required and accountable to the people to provide security. The problem in the US is generally not the government but the people electing the same idiots time and again or, arguably, a dictator wannabe.

I disagree. The constitution and the bill of rights don't allow for leeway in regards to the government removing the rights of the citizens. Specifically because those documents exist for the sole purpose of protecting the people from the government.

A violation of the constitution is an act of war against the people of the United States.

>and now I'm on a watchlist again... dammit.

>The constitution and the bill of rights don't allow for leeway in regards to the government removing the rights of the citizens
Citation needed. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from passing laws that ever member of it knows is patently unconstitutional.
>A violation of the constitution is an act of war against the people of the United States.
Again, citation needed. Congress is not a perfect institution. Nor did the framers of the Constitution expect it to be because they knew who was going to be in the first few and intimately familiar with their own shortcoming. Why? Because it was, by great number, them. And one of the first things they did after Washington's administration left DC was to violate it. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts?

They're just following the rules. I was job hunting a while back and tsa agents gets paid decent with good benefits.

I've got to say that I really respect your calm demeanor in face of my (uncharacteristically /k/) outburst.

>There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from passing laws that ever member of it knows is patently unconstitutional.
Except that they're expressly inalienable. They, by definition, cannot be taken away.

>Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts?
Offhand, admittedly, no.

I see a dark path where we continue being stripped more and more of our rights, until we have no rights left. And no one ever stands up and says that it's wrong, because it's so little at a time, and it's always in the name of fighting "our enemies". At what point does the enemy become the ones who take our rights away?

>Except that they're expressly inalienable.
That is merely your interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, I do not find your interpretation reliable or persuasive. Thus why I asked for a citation. If you cannot or refuse to provide a citation there is no reason to believe you even know the most basic concepts of Constitutional Law. This being the internet even a quick and dirty wikipedia link would provide some corroborative support. Such as...

>Offhand, admittedly, no.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
Basically it was a set of laws passed under Adam's administration by a Congress with many members who were part of the Constitutional convention. Mostly it dealt with immigration and naturalization but the most important one was the Sedition Act of 1789(I think) that prohibited free speech and free press that was critical of the federal government.

I REFUSE TO TRAVEL TO AMERICA ANYMORE

YOU CAN KEEP YOUR POLICE STATE

YOU CAN CONTINUE LIVING IN FEAR WHILE I TRAVEL THE WORLD

>1789
*1798. Beware the dyslexic typo. It lies in wait under the beds of your children!

Found the enemy combatant ;^)

I'm no history buff, but I think we can both agree that the constitution was formed because in light of the peoples' dispute with a tyrannical government, they wanted to write into the very core of law that the rights of the people were the basis to which the government was meant to be formed around. If personal freedoms weren't important, the lives given to escape that tyranny would have been lost in vain.

I hope it never comes to that.

>I think we can both agree that the constitution was formed because in light of the peoples' dispute with a tyrannical government, they wanted to write into the very core of law that the rights of the people were the basis to which the government was meant to be formed around.
Actually, no. The Constitution (which directly provided for a strong central government) was written in response to the unintended consequences in the Constitution's predecessor the Articles of Confederation (which directly prevented the creation of a strong central government). In fact, the Bill of Rights were not included in the Constitution for a number of reasons and were a compromise as being incorporated via the amendment process shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

Okay. But that sounds a lot to me like 'freedom is a lie used to manipulate the masses today, just as it was to manipulate those that gave their lives in the pursuit of freedom during the revolutionary war'. What for then, do we have those non-freedoms? Merely as a pacifier for those who stand to fight a government that was honest about its misuse of power?

>freedom is a lie used to manipulate the masses today
Do you only see the world in black and white? It's either unfettered freedom or "freedom is a lie" without any possible positions between these two?

I have a bad habit of reverting to hyperbole when I'm trying to make a point. No, but I do think it's more a deception than we're meant to believe.

I've really got to get to bed, but this was awesome! I can't remember the last time I faced off against someone on the chan that had a compelling argument that didn't devolve into shit-flinging. I can't say you've changed my stance on the constitution, but you certainly made me think, which is a lot more than I've ever said about any of the rest of the people I've met here. Top props; I hope I run into you again.

>No, but I do think it's more a deception than we're meant to believe.
Think about the job the federal government has to deal with. Unlike a business, the federal government doesn't get to choose who are their constituents. They serve the demands of every American. From those on the far right and the far left. It is this difficult balancing act and trying to find compromise between those who seek almost chaotic levels of freedom to those who seek almost draconian levels of security. I would definitely disagree with the concept of "freedom is a lie" so much as freedom needs to be tempered with consideration because absolute freedom is no different from anarchy.

Detraction? I thought you were better than that. Of course I agree with your statement, but it doesn't refute the fact that Americans are led to believe that we have certain rights, of which in reality are only privileges.

I'm going to go take a couple drags off a cigarette, and then I've got time for one more reply before the computer has got to go off. It's a shame it has to be so late...

>the fact that Americans are led to believe that we have certain rights, of which in reality are only privileges.
Are we led to believe that we have unfettered freedoms or that there are reasonable limits on them like say, warrants for searching one's home or arrest? Or confessions unintentionally volunteered are not prevent from being used as self-incrimination even though we are supposed to be protected from it being used against us?
Also, just another legal distinction - Privileges are a dead concept in Constitutional law. Now it's reasonable expectation or entitlement.

Again, not a history buff and I don't have the time to read up on it, but I believe the bill or rights specifies occlusions such as warrants in the fourth. And the fifth only protects a person from being forced to incriminate themselves, so I don't believe a volunteer of information would be considered a limit. So I would have to say that any legal interpretation other than the reasonable expectation of the freedom is, in fact deception.

Have a good night. If you ever find yourself in /out/'s /homeless general/ I'd really enjoy seeing you on the pro-employment argument. It'd be a nice change from the 'lols' and frogposting.

>the bill or rights specifies occlusions such as warrants in the fourth. And the fifth only protects a person from being forced to incriminate themselves
That's the point. It is clear from the text of the Constitution that there are limitations on freedom. To argue "Americans are led to believe" otherwise is either an ignorant misunderstanding of the Constitution or intentionally designed misinformation.
But even then those limitations are required to meet certain minimum requirements like "reasonable" (4A's protection from "unreasonable" search and seizure) "voluntary" (5A's protection from "forced" confessions), "due process" (5A, 14A), etc.

ITT: Autist pedos

We're coming for you :^)

>other than the reasonable expectation of the freedom
Whoops! Hit Submit too fast. That's the crux of issue. What is "reasonable" or "due process?" Normally, it is up to Congress to determine what is "reasonable" by finding the balance or acceptable compromises that fit within legal standards or "constitutional." Or to put it another way, with three branches of government the Executive cannot create law, the Judiciary mainly determines when law is outside legal boundaries so we are left with the Legislature to determine what is "reasonable." It isn't a detraction but a shortcut or "food for thought" that leads to the end of the point.

Okay, so they're going through people's phones and laptops. How likely are they to want to search a flash drive on my key ring?

Says other guy provides no argument. He explicitaty states the world inalienable which covers his case.

Other guy blatantly ignores this and continues shitposting. Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary user.

This constitution is a pretense to. There are clauses in there which states you can hunt for food if you're hungry... But try this in public oarks and see what happens. Also court can throw "contempt of court" on you for even mentioning the constitution. Showing what a farce it all really is.

>Citation needed
You claim to know so much about it so search it up yourself you lazy FCK.
>Burden of proof
Correct, but I don't have time for your little games.

>You claim to know so much about it so search it up yourself you lazy FCK.
Blatant attempts to shift the burden of proof demonstrates either an unwillingness to participate in a meaningful discussion or a simple failure of basic logic. If you've got nothing then just admit you've got nothing instead of expecting someone to go off on a wild goose chase.

Oh, and I forgot to mention I never once "claimed to know so much." If you cannot handle the burden of proof at least don't demean yourself with such pathetic fabrications.