Skip to main content

Court rules U.S. border agents need warrants to search electronic devices

Evening Shot of Border Wall Between El Paso Texas USA and Juárez Chihuahua Texas at Puerto Anapra with US Border Patrol Vehicle in the Distance

Do U.S. border agents have free rein to search travelers' electronic devices, such as phones, tables, and laptops, without a warrant? According to court filings, that's what they were doing. But there might be an end to that "broad, unconstitutional authority," as the American Civil Liberties Union has called it.

A federal district court in New York sided with civil liberties groups to rule that U.S. border agents must obtain a warrant before searching those devices.

"As the court recognizes, warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border are an unjustified intrusion into travelers’ private expressions, personal associations, and journalistic endeavors — activities the First and Fourth Amendments were designed to protect," Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said in a press release. "The ruling makes clear that border agents need a warrant before they can access what the Supreme Court has called a 'window onto a person’s life.'"

The ruling comes as part of a case in which a U.S. citizen, Kurbonali Sultanov, was flagged at New York's JFK International Airport for being "a possible purchaser or possessor of child sexual abuse material." Authorities allegedly found four videos on his phone after border agents said he had to give them his phone's password — without a warrant. He argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. 

The court found that "the searches of Sultanov’s phone violated the Fourth Amendment, which requires cell phone searches at the border to be supported by a warrant and probable cause; however, the Court denies suppression of the evidence because the government acted based on "the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule."



from Mashable https://ift.tt/o6p1tGx
via IFTTT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Instagram accidentally reinstated Pornhub’s banned account

After years of on-and-off temporary suspensions, Instagram permanently banned Pornhub’s account in September. Then, for a short period of time this weekend, the account was reinstated. By Tuesday, it was permanently banned again. “This was done in error,” an Instagram spokesperson told TechCrunch. “As we’ve said previously, we permanently disabled this Instagram account for repeatedly violating our policies.” Instagram’s content guidelines prohibit  nudity and sexual solicitation . A Pornhub spokesperson told TechCrunch, though, that they believe the adult streaming platform’s account did not violate any guidelines. Instagram has not commented on the exact reasoning for the ban, or which policies the account violated. It’s worrying from a moderation perspective if a permanently banned Instagram account can accidentally get switched back on. Pornhub told TechCrunch that its account even received a notice from Instagram, stating that its ban had been a mistake (that message itse...

Watch Aidy Bryant *completely* lose it as 'SNL' roasts political pundits

On Saturday Night Live , there are breaks and then there's whatever happened here. The Season 45 premiere featured a sketch that was meant to expose the empty noisemaking of political punditry on TV. But part of the joke involved a series of quick costume changes, and some weirdness during one of those switches led to a complete and total breakdown. Aidy Bryant, the segment's host, couldn't take it. She manages to keep it together until what appears to be an accidental wide shot exposes some of the magic as we see a woman who's probably a member of the SNL wardrobe crew fiddling with Aidy's costume. Read more... More about Saturday Night Live , Aidy Bryant , Entertainment , and Movies Tv Shows from Mashable https://ift.tt/2okrAOq via IFTTT

California Gov. Newsom vetoes bill SB 1047 that aims to prevent AI disasters

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed bill SB 1047, which aims to prevent bad actors from using AI to cause "critical harm" to humans. The California state assembly passed the legislation by a margin of 41-9 on August 28, but several organizations including the Chamber of Commerce had urged Newsom to veto the bill . In his veto message on Sept. 29, Newsom said the bill is "well-intentioned" but "does not take into account whether an Al system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions - so long as a large system deploys it."  SB 1047 would have made the developers of AI models liable for adopting safety protocols that would stop catastrophic uses of their technology. That includes preventive measures such as testing and outside risk assessment, as well as an "emergency stop" that would completely shut down...