US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders
-
In an era of ever deteriorating privacy and protections, a bipartisan US group of lawmakers has proposed new legislation that will protect the "no man's land" of the border zone with rights requiring police to have warrants for searching electronic devices!
-
They already need a warranty or reasonable cause to search you or your property. Not that I don't believe this is a bad thing, just seems redundant..
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
They already need a warranty or reasonable cause to search you or your property. Not that I don't believe this is a bad thing, just seems redundant..
No laws... NONE apply to you, even as a citizen, in the border zone. Until customs has granted you entrance to the country you are without rights. You can be forced to unlock your phone, they can search and keep anything they want, they can refuse you entry, hold you indefinitely, etc.
-
So the argument you're making here is that anything is neither legal nor illegal in a border area.
So why not just shoot the border patrol and go on with your day, there is no law, right?!
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
So the argument you're making here is that anything is neither legal nor illegal in a border area.
So why not just shoot the border patrol and go on with your day, there is no law, right?!
That's correct. But they will shoot you back. So while you understood the legal aspects of it, you completely miss the utility of your statement.
-
My point is if there is no US Law that is in effect inside the border area, there is no reason to neither stop for border patrol (besides to avoid being shot at).
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
On a side note, why would anyone bother to bring something electronic across the border that needs to be protected so securely as to deal with border patrol etc.
Email it, use an ftp server, a dropbox account any million other ways of transporting the information. Rather than physically.
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
My point is if there is no US Law that is in effect inside the border area, there is no reason to neither stop for border patrol (besides to avoid being shot at).
But that's the WHOLE reason.
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
You've really not understood.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
You've really not understood.
You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.
It's not that I'm not understanding, it's that I'm trolling.
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
You've really not understood.
You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.
Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
You've really not understood.
You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.
Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.
Why do you think it should be obvious that it IS true? I've not traveled the mexico / us border and likely never will. Why should something you believe as obvious, should be obvious to me?
Have you seen people shot because the security officer didn't like it that someone was chewing bubble gum. Cause that is less!
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
You've really not understood.
You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.
Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.
Why do you think it should be obvious that it IS true? I've not traveled the mexico / us border and likely never will. Why should something you believe as obvious, should be obvious to me?
It's obvious because we already established that you have NO rights in the border zone. None. There is no law. So given that we had established that and that you had acknowledged it would you then think that this one law would exist in the absence of all others?
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
Have you seen people shot because the security officer didn't like it that someone was chewing bubble gum. Cause that is less!
Of course not, the repercussions of doing so is what keeps them from doing it. If you start shooting people for no reason, all travel stops and foreign countries start embargoes or declaring war. But it is not law that stops it, it is common sense. And common sense has not always prevailed, like when the US border patrol has used the lawless no man's land to shoot that Mexican kid IN MEXICO.
-
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@scottalanmiller said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
And there is also no reason to comply with their request to unlock your devices.
You've really not understood.
You're statement here essentially says it's legal for them to just murder you in the border area because you refuse to allow them access to your device.
Um, duh. They CAN shoot you for that. And they've been known to do so for far less. You are acting as if you think this is not true, when it should be obvious that it IS true.
Why do you think it should be obvious that it IS true? I've not traveled the mexico / us border and likely never will. Why should something you believe as obvious, should be obvious to me?
It's obvious because we already established that you have NO rights in the border zone. None. There is no law. So given that we had established that and that you had acknowledged it would you then think that this one law would exist in the absence of all others?
But you are missing the fact that this is a lawless land! Why would a new law requiring a warrant some how be supported in a place where no law prevails?
-
@DustinB3403 said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
But you are missing the fact that this is a lawless land! Why would a new law requiring a warrant some how be supported in a place where no law prevails?
Because the people with the guns there are on the job and don't want to be barred from re-entry to the US. Their co-workers would shoot them or arrest them. And once dragged back across a border, would go to jail.
This really is just basic border stuff. Think about who has the guns, how they got there and where they will go. There is no food, shelter, water or anything in the border zone. It's just several feet of distance in many cases. So laws applying to people that will take effect on re-entry are a big deal.
-
And the point of the new legislation is that the law will be extended into the border zone, changing the lawless state.
-
I disagree, I think this no-mans-land should be a free for all.
No reason to need to warrant to get people to unlock any electronics in their possession.
Just shoot em in the face if they don't unlock the device at request. Nuff said. And if they shoot back we get a new "western movie" out of it.
-
The 'border zone' is currently 100 or 200(cant remember) miles from the border. So most americans can be searched without warrant. That is why a law like this should be passed.
-
@momurda said in US Proposes Warrant Requirement for Electronics Search at Borders:
The 'border zone' is currently 100 or 200(cant remember) miles from the border. So most americans can be searched without warrant. That is why a law like this should be passed.
It is 100 miles, assuming you are referring to this.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone
-
But what the originally linked article is talking about is the port of entry and border crossings. not the border zone.
