A federal district court in New York has ruled that U.S. border agents must obtain a warrant before searching the electronic devices of Americans and international travelers crossing the U.S. border.
The ruling on July 24 is the latest court opinion to upend the U.S. government’s long-standing legal argument, which asserts that federal border agents should be allowed to access the devices of travelers at ports of entry, like airports, seaports and land borders, without a court-approved warrant.
“The ruling makes clear that border agents need a warrant before they can access what the Supreme Court has called ‘a window into a person’s life,’” Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, one of the groups that filed in the case, said in a press release Friday.
The district court’s ruling takes effect across the U.S. Eastern District of New York, which includes New York City-area airports like John F. Kennedy International Airport, one of the largest transportation hubs in the United States.
Critics have for years argued that these searches are unconstitutional and violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unwarranted searches and seizures of a person’s electronic devices.
In this court ruling, the judge relied in part on an amicus brief filed on the defendant’s behalf that argued the unwarranted border searches also violate the First Amendment on grounds of presenting an “unduly high” risk of a chilling effect on press activities and journalists crossing the border.
With several federal courts ruling on border searches in recent years, the issue of their legality is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, unless lawmakers act sooner.
Zero Trust. Always cross international borders with burners. Always.
then you’re randomly selected once again to spend an additional 4h in a room until they check your story, because using a burner is suspicious af
Fine. My data is mine. Fuck them. But for the record it hasn’t happened to me once. It’s not like I’m walking through the line with a phone that’s just blank default. It’s just bereft of any of my private data.
in that case it makes no difference if it’s a burner or not
That’s not entirely correct. If the phone is out of my possession, other than sitting in a container passing through an X-ray machine, then the phone is considered compromised. I wont use it as my primary and it can never ever ever enter another client’s site.
Additionally I have done consulting in countries where my phone suddenly developed a case of the reboots, when none existed before.
If you plan ahead you can have a fully functioning device that brings value to your life that leaves your primary devices and accounts untouched and more importantly, locked up and away from prying eyes and government officials who are “just doing their job”.
I know I won’t prevail against an APT, but I can be successful everywhere else and a pain in the ass where I can’t.