Hacker News Reader

Comment by tiahura | Hacker News Reader

0 expectation of privacy at an international border. This has been the law since King Narmer and should surprise no one.

View on HN

But the amount of information on you they can get from your phone expands significantly every year. The founding fathers defined search and seizure as your house, which had your papers, banking documents, money, now all that is online and viewable with a fingerprint anywhere you are.

They define the border as 100 miles. Do you think that is reasonable?

Me personally, 100 miles, probably not - most of the time.

In Criminal Procedure, many law professors skip this section of the book (a bunch of drug cases) and summarize the caselaw with “you have no rights at the border.”

66% of the US population lives "at the border", and what do drug cases have to do with any of this?

Most of the precedent cases in this area are drug prosecutions typically involving over-border smuggling.

And this includes the coast. NYC, SF, LA, DC etc are all within the border zone.

Also international airports

Where do you live in the US? If you are within 100 miles of a coast or border, you're "at the border" and these rulings apply.

2/3rds of the US is at such a border, and thus any CBP officer can perform a warrantless search of anyone without even the suggestion of any kind of probable cause. I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen police report anyone suspicious to the CBP in the knowledge that that gives them a direct bypass for any illegal search they want.

Presuming King Narmer is an old guy, it was probably also true that slavery has been the paw for nearly all of the time since his rule.

Doesn’t make it right.

That doesn't mean any and all treatment at a border crossing is legal. Would you not object to an anal probe administered by CBP?

I wasn’t giving my opinion. IAAL, I was giving you the law.

And the general thrust of pointing out things like this is to discuss whether or not the law is wrong. As laws are made and enforced by societies, it is entirely possible that they might need to be changed by those same societies as their needs and ethical standards change.

And would they object if I insisted on one, being in the "border zone"? This has to be a two-way street.

Can information collected at the border in an otherwise unconstitutional manner be used against you for anything except admission purposes?

In other words, would a judge accept evidence seized at the border in a case not about border law?

Doesn't that mean that a border is at DEN, ORD, etc?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com