Woman Banned from US After Border Agent Finds Proof of Drug Use on Phone | Hacker News Reader

Woman Banned from US After Border Agent Finds Proof of Drug Use on Phone

vice.com

61 pointsbenevol68 comments

So she was banned from entering the US not because she was carrying any drugs, and not because she intended to sell any drugs or get hold of any drugs, and not because she was currently using any drugs.

She was banned from entering the US because she had previously taken drugs...

EDIT: Also, the video on how to protect yourself when crossing the US border is "not available in my region"? What the hell? Do people in my region not have to protect ourselves when crossing the US border?

She was banned from the US because border control are arbitrary, intrusive, judgemental, prejudiced and like the fact that they have power over people who have no rights in that context.

I decided to never even attempt to enter the US somewhere after 2001. Not until a bunch of things change (well, they did change; for the worse). What's the use of flying across the big pond if you can get turned away that nilly willy?

So they’re fascists basically.

That is a fair description of US border controls post 9-11, yes.

US border control is indeed an unpleasant experience. Even Chinese border control is nicer.

Chinese border control has been a pleasant experience for at least the last 20 years (as long as I've been visiting China) and probably longer.

As a US citizen, US border control is OK, but for non-citizens, it seems bad -- the primary problem is that entry can be denied at essentially the whim of the border guard, without regard to the visa.

Also, in a lot of countries, being a border person is one of the best jobs available -- status, contact with foreigners, and a conscious decision by the government to put a good face forward by picking good people.

I've visited about 100 countries or autonomous regions, and I've never had a bad border experience in any country. The worst thing has just been getting visa in advance vs. visa on arrival, and in the case of Belarus, previously-restrictive policies which were loosened and a lot of people didn't know about it (transit via Minsk airport now doesn't require a visa)

The only places with on-paper bad border controls for US people seem to be otherwise-decent countries which are trying to apply reciprocal pain to US passport holders -- Brazil being the best example.

It's public knowledge I was charged with two counts of Traffic controlled drug and one count of Posses Prescription drug. All charges later dropped.

I still joke about it on a daily basis with friends in all the usual digital chat apps.

There is absolutely no freaking way I would ever go to the US.

Full stop. Period. End of story.

Edit: fixed an the words

The exchange they found on her phone that established her prior drug use was a conversation between her and her doctor. Is border patrol allowed to violate patient/doctor confidentiality? What about attorney/client privilege?

They shouldn't have been looking on her phone anyway. What the fuck kind of fascist nation has the US become?

Putting aside whether you think drug use should be a disqualifying factor for entering the country, assuming it is, why is it wrong to find evidence of it?

Are you implying that an alien attempting to cross the border has all the same constitutional rights as a citizen?

What's the limit? A phone is full of private life. You should only have access to it if you have a clear suspicious of crime and that a judge allowed it.

It's the closest thing to a cavity search without touching the body.

My understanding of current law is that border agents have the right to demand a cavity search. So searching your phone would be within bounds as well.

Again, this is for aliens and not citizens. I see no reason for them to expect additional constitutional rights external to the US.

The alternative for aliens is not to come. They can vote with their feet.

CBP claims the authority to search everybody.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/inspection...

It's also unclear to me why you're so carefully distinguishing between "aliens" and "citizens" in this matter, since most constitutional rights are irrespective of citizenship.

I meant aliens seeking entry.

Which constitutional right are you claiming applies differently to citizens than to non-citizens at the border?

All constitutional rights as aliens seeking entry have none. Whether citizens, permanent residents, or legal immigrants who have previously been here have any is a separate question.

I'm specifically saying I see no reason that an alien has any constitutional rights just because they showed up at your doorstep. That starts after they're allowed to enter.

I think you'll find that US citizens don't have a functioning fourth amendment right at the border either. So there's no point distinguishing, unless you really like saying "aliens".

If you more read carefully you'll see I never suggested that they do. I'm saying that a alien with no existing legal status in the US has no legal rights under US law nor do they have any constitutional protections until they're admitted.

Claiming they have fourth amendment protections from a search at the border by customs is non sense. They don't have any of those protections.

The sad reality is that citizens don't have most of those either.

Yes, I've read your remarks, and the ones you responded to. I don't think anyone made that particular claim.

> Are you implying that an alien attempting to cross the border has all the same constitutional rights as a citizen?

A passport is what the alien has.

An official document, vouching for the alien, from a country that has diplomatic ties with the one they are visiting.

Why is it acceptable to treat the representative of a nation, that you have ties with, as if they have no right to privacy? That searching them as a suspect of criminal action is allowed as the norm?

So what? Short of an explicit treaty outlining cross honored travel without (ex: like euro zone) there's no inherent right to that. Passport, no passport, doesn't matter.

Note that I never said whether I personally think it's a good policy or whether I think it's morally sound. I'm saying they have legal standing to do so.

Enforcing your borders and dictating the rules for anyone external crossing them to enter your country is the right of each nation to decide on its own.

> Passport, no passport, doesn't matter.

Well, it does matter. Why?

> Enforcing your borders and dictating the rules for anyone external crossing them to enter your country is the right of each nation to decide on its own.

Passports are part of that negotiation. An acknowledgement of the rights of the individual visiting.

As to what rights a passport holder can expect, the US is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [0]. Even if their implementation is incomplete, and heavily criticised.

However, here's some of the relevant points:

Article 9 recognises the rights to liberty and security of the person.

Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity.

Article 12 guarantees freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence and to leave a country. These rights apply to legal aliens as well as citizens of a state.

Article 16 requires states to recognize everyone as a person before the law.

The only reason that the US currently says they can ignore these rights and demand searching at the border without just cause, is because they say that whilst you are at a point of entry, you are neither a legal alien nor a citizen. Within the 100-mile border area, the US Constitution doesn't even apply. [1]

> Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is. [1]

They actively manipulate the law to remove rights from not just aliens, but their own citizens as well.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...

[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...

I am not so familiar with the US law but why wouldn't they?

The first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

To be even clearer, the second states:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

Not being a US citizen does not allow the US government to violate basic human rights.

And just if you think pricavy is not a basic human right, in the same declaration you find:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

EVERYONE. Not just "US Citizen".

But then again maybe the US do not respect the most basic human rights.

The "everyone" referred to in that document and all other laws in the USA apply to people after they're here. Not before.

Yes they apply to both citizens and non citizens alike. All have those freedoms and short of seeking elected office or voting, there isn't much distinction.

But that doesn't mean those rights apply externally. A woman in Saudi Arabia doesn't have freedom of speech per the US first ammendment. A man in Russia doesn't have fourth ammendment protections against searches.

Arriving at the border doesn't mean you're inside. Until the country lets you in, you're still outside.

> Arriving at the border doesn't mean you're inside. Until the country lets you in, you're still outside.

You do realise that "border" is not well-defined, right?

It's somewhere between 25-250 miles around the US... So when have you actually entered? The CBP certainly don't view it as having been processed through customs and immigration and regularly detain people who have been processed.

> all other laws in the USA apply to people after they're here.

When do they arrive?

You can spend your entire visit within the US's border region.

> You do realise that "border" is not well-defined, right?

> It's somewhere between 25-250 miles around the US... So when have you actually entered? The CBP certainly don't view it as having been processed through customs and immigration and regularly detain people who have been processed.

Again, I never said I agree with any of this. I'm saying this is how the current laws have been interpreted and upheld till now.

> When do they arrive?

After they've passed customs. Being inside the custom's office doesn't grant special rights.

> After they've passed customs.

I specifically said that is not the case, and BCP say that is not the case, and Congress do not say that is the case. (See U.S. v. Hernandez-Lopez, where 50 miles after passing through customs was still sufficient to allow for detainment by border patrol.)

It is an expectation of most travelers, but it is patently false.

> Again, I never said I agree with any of this.

Neither have I. The law is ambiguous, and practically without restraint. Even when there is restraint, the BCP regularly are not aware, and violate it.

This is why Europe has moved to the doctrine of "human rights" rather than "constitutional rights": that gives a strong yes to the second question.

Citizens and non-citizens aren't really seperate classes of human being. The rights restricted from non-citizens are those to do with residence and employment. Other rights to fair treatment should not be restricted from non-citizens.

This was happening under Obama but the media only started covering it after Trump got elected. He also went after leakers and journalists more than any other president, if Trump tried the same thing the media would go wild.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...

B.S. It was regularly but infrequently covered during the Obama era, and regularly but infrequently covered during the Trump era.

Take an arbitrary year in Obama's second term, count the ratio of border freedom infringement stories to political stories on HN, and compare to the same ratio in 2017. I bet the Obama ratio is higher.

This is somewhat unrelated, but when does a person ever deal with a doctor via email / texting?

My doctor regularly emails me any documentation we have, and in non-pressing cases I can email them, so as to not waste time when they could be seeing a patient.

Example: My regular, life-long, prescription has run out. Can you mail me another?

Presumably some kind of psychologist, either as part of an admittance form or to make sharing easier for her. I've emailed a starting questionnaire to a dentist before.

"A British Columbia woman was issued a lifetime ban at the US border after officials found an email with her doctor"

A very clear example why it is important to have encryption in the context of email. A private conversation between a patient and their doctor should be sacrosanct, and if government can't keep their hands away then technology need to step in and try to do its best to protect people.

They read the email on her phone. Encryption of the message between the phone and her doctor would have been useless.

Encryption can also work on data in rest. There is no reason why very sensitive information is not stored in more safe way on the phone.

Having your email app configured within the "secure folder" on a Samsung Galaxy, protected by Knox encryption and requiring biometrics or a password, for example.

But to even get to anything on the phone they must have got the owner to unlock it anyway. All this is pointless if the user can be compelled or persuaded to grant access. Which in this case is what happened. And if you don't grant access, they just don't let you into the country anyway. Is still don't understand how you think these measures would help.

I don't plan on ever visiting the US, especially with its current administration, but if I were to visit then I'd just take a £20 burner phone and no other tech. Anything I need I can put in to any number of cloud services and get it when I'm through the pointless interrogation.

I thought about it but what if they consider it suspect that you have a burner or a freshly wiped phone?

A job I interviewed for recently found it suspicious that I didn't have a facebook or other social media accounts. As if I was lying and had something to hide. I can only imagine what law enforcement would think about that.

Exactly

I'd be happy to not take a job with a company like that.

Meanwhile in another thread people are arguing about "free speech" in the context of Nazis. I wonder if some of the people so keen to defend the worst kinds of speech could be redirected to argue that people might have a right to private free speech with their doctor and also enter the US?

I fail to see why there should necessarily be this tention between free speech and privacy?

My fellow humans: Free speech is dying in America. You are free to speak as long as it matches the illusory "public opinion", doesn't offend the "wrong people", and doesn't make law enforcement or the internet think that you're a "bad sort of person".

Privacy is the safest way for individuals to preserve your "freedom". Keep your head down. Don't rock the boat. If you post an unpopular opinion, whether it's right or wrong is largely irrelevant. You will attract ire from those with an opposing opinion.

If I report what you said to someone else, is that my free speech or your privacy?

Privacy isn't just about how wide the 4th amendment is and whether it applies to cellphones at borders, it's a broader construction which in some cases requires suppressing information.

Tourism is one of the largest industries in the US. Approximately 77 million foreigners traveled here in 2016 [1]. Hopefully, in time, we can get some statistics about lost revenue due to these policies and persuade congress against them. Lost profits seem to be something they understand and take action on.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/214686/number-of-interna...

This is a intrusive and brazen breach of the right to privacy as is any inspection of personal devices and papers wherever it occurs.

It's time to stop the apologism and accept we are at the bottom of the slippery slope. It's also time to stop the pointless grandstanding about China, Russia etc to feel smug and superior because there is zero moral authority to pull that off.

The bigger problem is inspite of the outrage by many nothing happens. Is democracy working?

Yet another reminder to never cross borders while carrying anything other than disposable electronic communications and/or storage devices containing zero personal information. If anything leaves your sight, consider it copied and compromised - burn it.

Thanks border guards for keeping this terrorist out. /s

Seriously, she should not have admitted to drug use. Do not admit to anything at any border at any time. Always password protect the phone or even log out of your accounts in case they get in anyway. I've seen border agents pull a family into questioning because the mother hadn't signed her passport. Don't do that shit. The border is the worst place on earth and you can't fuck around there (any border to any country). Have fun after you cross over. Have common sense at the border. Lie if necessary but make sure it's a proper lie for the situation.

proof of law breaking, yes but the snooping is worrying

She wasn't in the US at the time. Which US laws were broken?

do they have to be US laws, if laws are broken in the country of origin it means she's a criminal.

Using drugs is not illegal. Possession is, but if you are given something by a friend and take it (as described in the article) you don't take possession. There was no proof of any laws being broken.

It's not just snooping .. that's communication between her and her doctor.

Privacy advocates (and I consider myself one) can often come off as going a bit over-the-top - but communication between my doctor & I, and my lawyer & I, are pretty universally recognized as privileged.

That she was banned because of previous exposure to contraband, doesn't really irk me so much. Canada treats American DUIs similarly, and borders are very much tit-for-tat. But searching bona fides medical correspondence to find this, seems like a genuine problem.

Drug use is actually not illegal. Only possession is.

The article says that she consumed something that she believed to be cocaine, offered to her by a friend. When taking drugs offered to you by someone else, you never take possession.

Why such an accent on the gender? I see no any relevance of the gender in regards with article contents.

FWIW, I read it and didn't think much emphasis was placed on the gender.

From the text, the gender is totally irrelevant to the issue, but this is the first word in the title.

It's normal English usage.

There isn't any accent on gender. She is a woman, it's perfectly normal to mention that.

Would you read an emphasis on gender if it had said "Man Banned from US" rather than "Woman"? I think this might simply be a case of the mind erroneously assuming male is the default gender.

Half the headlines start with "Man [verb] ..." and you never noticed. Maybe look within for the sexism?

https://www.reddit.com/r/FloridaMan/

Good point. It's arguably way more than half.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com