Enshitified website says: “Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker”
The NY Times used to have an onion that was not so restricted:
https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/
But it’s down.
Would someone plz post the text of this article? Or an alternate source?
This is not mysterious. You do not have to unlock your phone if it uses a password which is something you know, but you cannot delete your data. This has always been a well known rule.
The current administration has stated that even for US Citizens, border entry suspends all constitutional rights. They’ve also said they believe this applies to allow warrantless searches within 100 miles of a border, which includes most major US cities, thus allowing ICE to search and kidnap basically anyone, not just immigrants. And they have stated that searching an electronic device is not a “search” as mentioned in the 4th Amendment and so you can’t refuse to unlock the device or “destroy evidence”. And that once you give them that access, that you have also “freely given” them access to your private social media, bank, etc., records and so those no longer require a warrant to access. And it’s “gun to the head” tactics because they also believe they can detain you indefinitely in the 100 mile zone without a lawyer or any other usual rights, because you aren’t being arrested, just an extended interview or whatever they call it. All in the name of terrorism prevention, of course.
Since they have corrupted the Supreme Court, this has been mostly upheld in various court cases so far. But any legal scholar will tell you it’s nonsense. But that doesn’t matter to authoritarians. They don’t work within the law.
This started long before the current admin.
This was in place under Obama, and I’m pretty sure it started with 9/11.
The difference is that previous admins have just abused it much more sparingly because they knew that it would undermine the regime’s legitimacy if those powers got to much attention.
Legal Information Institute, Searches at International Borders suggests that the Supreme Court decided “searches made at the border … are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border” in 1977.
Oh, yeah, but at least the courts would intervene back then. Now many of the courts have been corrupted and the ones that haven’t are bound by precedent which the supreme court no longer obeys and courts above them that are corrupted. So these specific interpretations are becoming more and more common and not just against poor people who can’t afford lawyers.
This has always been a well known rule.
Smartphones and the rules surrounding them at border searches are still pretty new, and they’re likely enough to change. I think you might be overestimating the well-known-ness of these customs.
My understanding is that he is not the person who deleted the data, the agent did it by entering the pin. That’s an interesting wrinkle. Is that materially different than entering the wrong pin 10 times which often also wipes the device?
The problem. You cannot lie to an agent, but you can remain silent. Your also taking an action with a known consequence and an action that is not allowed.
I want to see the agent’s proof that he entered the pin correctly
