Some other possibilities come to mind, and perhaps there are more:
* It was a legitimate search wrt information available at the time, and then more/better information became available, and it was no longer legitimate. (Assuming a certain definition of "legitimate".)
* It was a legitimate search, and cloning and/or compromising the devices took time.
(Just devil's advocate, for intellectual curiosity, not disagreeing with public interest concern.)
> CBP officers searched Dr. Gal’s wallet and all his luggage, and asked questions about everything they found. When they discovered Dr. Gal’s Apple-issued electronic devices, the officers first asked Dr. Gal to pull up his itinerary on his mobile phone, and then to hand the unlocked device over to CBP. Dr. Gal responded that he would email them the itinerary, but that he would need to speak with a lawyer and his employer before giving CBP officers full access to his mobile phone.
...
> Moreover, there was no reason for any CBP officers—TTRT or otherwise—to detain and interrogate Dr. Gal or his devices. Notably, CBP officers did not confiscate and retain Dr. Gal’s devices, which they were authorized to do under the Directive and presumably would have done if they truly felt that they possessed a basis for detaining Dr. Gal or keeping his devices. See Directive, § 5.3.3. Instead, CBP officers proceeded to demand that Dr. Gal provide immediate, unlimited access to his devices.
Dunno what to do about this. I think TSA is a sham and a waste of my money. I think border control is taking my money and using it to abuse people. I don't think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport.
I've written my reps and the president, I call about once a month, but it has no measurable effect. Smarter people than me have done audits on TSA and published them in famous newspapers to show how useless they are. There's people fighting against CBP locking up asylum seekers but it still happens.
Dunno what to do. Partner and I are considering abandoning the USA.
I don't disagree substantively with your sentiments, but you're conflating TSA and CBP.
TSA is ostensibly about security on airplanes (or more realistically "security theatre"), and are not law enforcement. You primarily deal with them before getting on an airplane in the US, for nearly all commercial flights (both international and domestic).
CBP are law enforcement officers in the customs (contraband, taxes, etc) and immigration (passport control, visas) domains operating at the border. If you're traveling by plane, you primarily deal with them after you disembark from an international flight.
For what its worth, SFO does not use the TSA [0]. The posted article does not mention the TSA at all, only Border Patrol and Customs agents. I've had terrible TSA experiences at other airports, but never a problem with the security at SFO.
This isn't the only reason we're considering leaving, so it's not the crux upon which we are filtering choices.
Scandinavia is being tossed around as an option, pending further research on each nation, but generally I've been quite inspired by hackers I've met from there and I haven't seen shockingly dystopian news out of the region in a while.
Taiwan is on the shortlist mostly because the government is so preoccupied with dancing a knifeblade with the PRC that the citizens have plenty of room to pass extremely liberal policy. Internet fast as hell and the healthcare system is pretty nice as well. Plus, it's crazy cheap.
We're always open to suggestions. New Zealand is something we're looking at but are conflicted about.
Additionally, the extradition scheme with Julian Assange (lure him to Sweden, who will deport to the USA) and laws like IPRED (which forced the creation of IPredator.se VPN) are sketchy at best.
Co-liability for debts in many European contries is also a very questionable practice, from what I gather there isn't the same kind of credit system, leaving few un-collateralized debts, and roomates can be held liable for debts they didn't incur, co-sign for or otherwise agree to. Makes you really want to think hard about who you split a flat with!
Its not by coincidence though, TPTB use economic pressure to institute common policy and ideology anywhere they can influence. That is why pretty much any nation with rule of law also adheres to US IP doctrine and has treaties in place to be subject to the will of North America and Europe for extradition, trade, business rights, etc.
"I don't think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport."
This reminds me of something Abigail Disney, an heiress to the Disney family fortune, was quoted as saying in an article recently posted to HN. She said that she wished she could pass a law against private jets, "because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don't have to go through an airport terminal, you don't have to interact, you don't have to be patient, you don't have to be uncomfortable. These are the things that remind us we're human."[1][2]
Getting better treatment because you have more power, wealth, or connections is a huge reason for the world being as shitty as it is today.
If the rich and powerful had to go through the same hassles and be treated like the rest of do, things would change for the better mighty quick.
This sort of maltreatment has been commonly perpetrated against foreigners and certain targeted minorities for decades, and mostly no one outside those groups gives a shit (or not enough to do anything about it). But when someone from your own demographic is affected, suddenly people start to take notice, and if someone rich and powerful gets affected it makes the front page.
This reminds me of Martin Niemoller's famous "First they came for the socialists" poem[3], and of how during the 80's some Senator got caught up in a scandal that started because his cellular calls were intercepted by radio, and pretty quickly after that Congress passed laws that forbid commercially available radios from being able to tune in on cellular frequencies or be easily modified to allow them to do so.
> She said that she wished she could pass a law against private jets, /.../ These are the things that remind us we're human.
So, US government should pass a law - applying to all US citizens - because it will help a billionaire heiress feel more human. Riiight.
> Getting better treatment because you have more power, wealth, or connections
I have no power, no connections and no wealth, if you don't count $100 GlobalEntry registration costed me. It saved me countless hours in lines, while I am exhausted from 10+ hour flight. If you call me "rich and powerful" because of that, I'd have no choice but to laugh and marvel at how little is required, apparently, to become part of the Illuminati.
It seems more likely a public perception problem - not enough people know the TSA is a waste of their money, so politicians keep the job subsidy rolling because the alternative is having to explain why they cut "security" funding.
Global Entry gets you two things: a faster line when you re-enter the US, and membership in TSA Pre-Check. For me, Pre-Check is far more useful, because most of my travel is domestic (and it also helps you on the outbound portion of international travel).
Or to put it another way, Global Entry is only $15 if you're already buying PreCheck.
Global Entry paid for itself the first time I used it when I made a connection after going through customs that I definitely would have missed if I had to wait in the regular line.
Glen Greenwald started writing about this back in 2012.
>One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.
Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker whose story was told in the above link faced several dozen of these incidents between the Bush and the Obama years.
Interestingly, Edward Snowden learned who Poitras was from this series of stories, and Poitras' experiences with repeated searches and seizures led to her learning enough about encryption so that when Snowden decided to contact the press and become a whistleblower, Poitras was the first journalist he attempted to contact who knew enough to be able to exchange encryption keys and communicate with him directly.
Although it is difficult to do so, maintaining your calm when faced by intimidation by government agents generally works out. Andreas did exactly the right thing - followed his gut calmly then, filed a case in the courts later.
He had a huge benefit of being a US citizen. The worst they could do, is to intimidate and introduce a lot of stress into his life. They can't deny entry into the country to the citizen at the end of the day.
As a green card holder with my whole life being here, I can be denied entry for whatever reason. This makes it pretty much impossible for me to maintain my rights and refuse to cooperate in any way.
> It is in that spirit that I have filed a civil rights complaint with the help of the ACLU against CBP for unlawfully detaining me and violating my constitutional rights.
It's an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security, not a legal case. Not sure if this is an area where there is an administrative remedy that needs to be exhausted before filing a lawsuit, or if there is some other reason for the decision to take this approach.
Every time an article like this pops up (seems like a couple times a month now), I'm validated in my decision to donate monthly to the ACLU. They're always mentioned as fighting this stuff on the front lines.
This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a personal laptop with naked pictures of your wife and kids bathing. Especially when we know it is all security theater. So I am with you. I will avoid the USA for now until the climate changes.
Pretty much all Europeans I know working in Latin America that travel home 1-2 a year, avoid flights that go trough US airports even tough it would often be the cheapest options by quite some margin. For me not having to deal with US borders is worth the up to 300 USD difference in flight price.
I did it once back in 2008 for a flight from Costa Rica to Switzerland via Miami and was caught completely by surprise that, unlike every other airport in the world I have been prior, Miami (US in general?) did not have a separate transit area, and that I had to go trough the whole customs and migration circus for a 3 hour layover.
I just went through this circus for a 1.5-hour layover. Salt in the wound was CBP having just 1 agent serving Non-US travellers for a 737 that just came from Japan…
>you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone
Government laws always will overturn any agreement you had with an employers or some other person or organization.
Security theater or not, if a country is being an asshole in foreign affairs, or at least is at war with someone, be sure your rights most probably will be violated if you decide to have an interaction with such government employees.
Me too. We've considered holidays that would take us close to the states (Canada and the Caribbean) but there are very few flights direct from New Zealand and they're crazy expensive.
I donated to the ACLU on Trump’s first weekend in office when he made such a cock-up of his travel ban. Then the letters started coming begging for more money. I like their ostensible mission but I don’t want more junk mail. At this point I’m pretty sure they’ve spent more money mailing me shit than I donated, and destroyed all my motivation to give them anything more. It’s too bad, because we do need organizations like this, but why do they have to piss off the people who want to support them?
Bulk mail is significantly cheaper than retail rates. They're paying about 40% or more less than you do for each letter so it doesn't take many donations to pay for all the letters that don't net donations.
For 200+ pieces of 'marketing mail' they're only paying ~19c per letter. [0]
This is becoming too common. Laura Poitras has documented her harassment as have multiple others activists and journalists. The idea of opaque no fly and other secret lists, secret processes and demanding to go through people's personal papers is totalitarian.
If this happened in China or for instance Venezuela there is instant global outrage about 'freedom' and yet every time the exact same thing happens in the UK or the US the outrage is quickly replaced by legalese and apologism. Surely if people cared so much about any of these values they would severely push back when it happens in their own backyard but we rarely see that, just more demonizing others which quickly loses meaning and becomes complicit in the descent to a quasi police state.
Many who make sweeping statement about 'democracy' and 'freedom' seem to be severely disconnected from things on the ground as those those who use these 'freedoms' in any serious way in terms of actual activism or critical journalism however slight end up on some kind of list and singled out for harassment. [1]
It's horrible but the case-law seems fairly well settled; various courts have ruled that lots of searches that would otherwise violate the 4th Amendment are totally permissible for CBP agents within 100 miles of the border and at customs checkpoints within international airports. I'd love to be surprised if there is a legitimate case here.
- Under Martinez-Fuerte, CBP can briefly question anyone at a checkpoint within 100 miles of the US border to ascertain their citizenship. The only privilege over usual reasonable suspicion / probable cause searches is to ascertain citizenship (so searching your glove compartment or your pockets isn't granted).
- There's a border search exception _passing through the border_, which allows for CBP to search you & your possessions, with _no_ requirement for reasonable suspicion nor a warrant.
- Under Cotterman, the border search exception does _not_ extend to forensic examination of your devices. The agents need reasonable suspicion or a warrant or consent.
Thanks. I was going to say—I expect (as a citizen) that within 100 miles of the border I can be searched without a warrant by CBP and be detained if I refuse, but I don't expect that I can be compelled to unlock my devices and be detained if I refuse.
"Show me what you have concealed in your pockets" vs. "Show me what you have concealed in your devices" -- aren't these two commands legally equivalent?
I think most people have a higher expectation of privacy for their data than their belongings outside their home.
And the Supreme Court agrees - Riley v. California:
> Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee’s per- son. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical reali- ties and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pic- tures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an el- ement of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives.
I think the US courts see them as different because you have different expectations about whether other (non-government) people might see them. The contents of my pocket might fall out, and they get put on a conveyor belt at airport security. But files on my phone don't have this level of visibility.
I think it is also legally relevant to put a passcode on your phone.
A passcode offers you even more protection - you can't be compelled to divulge the passcode even with a warrant, because it would violate your 5A rights
This is different from fingerprints, which can be compelled with a warrant
So if you have sufficiently sensitive data, protect it with something you know, not something you have
Sure, but you should still have the right to have a lawyer confirm that for you, no? The entire reason we have the right to legal representation is that individuals are not expected to understand all the case law in the country. A lawyer can totally say "Yeah, they're allowed to search you, unlock your phone"—but the ability to confirm that with a lawyer is an important right.
The right to an attorney is actually limited to criminal defendants, so if they don't charge you with anything, you aren't actually afforded that protection Constitutionally. So if they just detain you, they can credibly ignore this. I'm not 100% sure on how Miranda rights apply to border detainee situations, but if they do apply, you'd get a phone call. If they don't, your options are basically to wait them out.
I'm quite positive (not a lawyer) that unlocking records (e.g. phone, phone book, laptop etc.) is not part of any legal search and under purview of wiretapping or seizure laws, much less privacy laws.
Those require a court order in general unlike a typical police search... unless CBP has leeway there too in which case it is a monster.
I believe it gives them a reason to conduct a search, but that still should not include compelling someone to disclose a password, which should be protected by the fifth amendment against self-incrimination.
They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111.
You're not alone. I've cut my U.S. travel significantly in the last years due to what I've experienced as hostile border agents for reasons I could never quite figure out but probably related to my nomadic lifestyle. I'm not a U.S. citizen but I do come from a "friendly" nation and it's shameful some of the things that have been said to me in an effort to catch me out in a lie that didn't exist.
> The agents proceeded to search my belongings and demanded that I unlock my smartphone and laptop. This was rather concerning for me. My phone and laptop are property of my employer and contain unreleased software and proprietary information. I’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement promising not to give anyone access.
His employer is Apple. I was always worried about this same scenario when traveling with an Apple-owned laptop..
>His employer is Apple. I was always worried about this same scenario when traveling with an Apple-owned laptop..
Does Apple not have a policy for this? I would suggest asking them.
I asked my employer when I joined (even though my job had absolutely zero international travel). They had a simple policy: Always comply with law enforcement in whatever country you're in: If they want me to enter my laptop password, my company directs me to cooperate.
It would be scary if Apple does not have a policy on this.
I just looked up my own employer's policies/guidance, and they say:
1. Comply with legal government requests (in any country; there's also a pre-approval form for international travel with a corporate laptop, and a list of countries that they will not let you take your corporate laptop to at all).
2. If you are a US citizen, the US must let you back in even if you don't consent to a search, though they can seize your devices in the process.
The "legal" qualifier on #1 means I'd want access to a lawyer, which they denied....
Yeah, my understanding is that CBP is not allowed to prevent US citizens from re-entering the country. That said, how they ascertain your citizenship status if (say) you lost your passport...
You should probably find out/ask whether Apple has guidance regarding how you should behave in such a situation (and if you are concerned that following that guidance could cause you problems personally, you may want to get an independent opinion regarding your rights).
if his employer is apple then he is fine to unlock. all such employers require you to follow border agent instructions. that said he may be in violation of a policy not to travel with proprietary info
Maybe keep the card of Apple's lawyers on your person. If you're in a situation like this, have them call the number. Or clarify Apple's policy on this before traveling.
His request to call his employer or an attorney was denied:
> I asked the agents if I could speak to my employer or an attorney before unlocking my devices. This request seemed to aggravate the customs officers. They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111.
Fantastic that he posted his experience, but it sounded like a pretty standard experience with authorities for many Americans. Genuinely curious why this is news compared to what happens to many other people?
As a Global Entry holder myself I expect that because the government has done a background check on me, has my fingerprints, etc., it generally understands that (despite my Indian skin, unshaved stubble, and vote for Hillary) I am not a threat. I have voluntarily subjected myself the government conducting a background check and holding files / information on me in exchange for less hassle. So part of it is that it's baffling they would detain a Global Entry holder and effectively remove his Global Entry status without explanation.
(For what it's worth, I helped my family move cross-country by car in summer 2016; we passed a "border" checkpoint in New Mexico or so, on I-10 relatively far from the border, where they stopped each car, asked us if we were citizens, and let us go on our way when I answered yes. That seems like a much more "standard" experience than what's here.)
Part of it is denial of a lawyer. As I understand it, you might not have a right to deny the search, but you should still have access to counsel, because the point of legal representation is that they can tell you exactly what rights you do / don't have.
Part of it is an apparent government focus on Mozilla. Andreas Gal hasn't been at Mozilla for about four years, but that's what they asked him about. And there was the visa denial for Daniel Stenberg (author of curl) when heading to the Mozilla all-hands: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgat...
And finally, part of it is that it shouldn't be common. It's a good reason for individuals and companies to leave America.
I'm an American and I have been detained and searched by CBP without actually ever leaving the country. They didn't ask my name, just that we needed to get out of the car while they let their dog search the car.
You don't have to get out of the car. CBP only have power to stop you to ascertain the citizenship of the passengers. They need reasonable suspicion to further detain you, or probable cause to search you or your car.
You can consent to the search, but you don't need to. If you refuse consent and they lack probable cause, the evidence would be suppressed.
He claimed their dog indicated on our car... but that's a bunch of BS because the dog was already sitting next to them when we pulled up and didn't do anything further(exactly the same thing the dog did for the car in front of us).
He then tried to get us to say we had personal use amounts of drugs on us and he was only looking for massive amounts of narcotics(the "amount cartels have" according to him).
I was with a friend who was not a US citizen but is here legally on a work visa, they took his documents and left me alone while the dog ran through the truck.
And to be honest, do you really think I'm going to put up a fight when I haven't seen a shower in days and have a 7hr drive ahead of me?
We obviously fit a profile of sorts because the first words out of his mouth when we pulled up were to pull to the side because his dog indicated on us and he needed to search our car.
If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car. They can take detain you and search every nook and cranny of both the car and its passengers.
Again - nothing distinct about being near the border for that.
As you said, it's not objective whether the dog legitimately signaled. But IIUC you have limited ability to demonstrate that. (anyone know of cases around this?)
> If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car.
In other words:
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless a dog barks."
On a side note, it's probably a problem that people are told "Can you get out of the car so we can have this dog search it" and hear "You must get out of the car so we can have this dog search it," but my understanding is the courts put a lot of weight on that distinction.
The courts have ruled that if someone makes a request under threat of physical violence or death, it is impossible to consent unless of course the person making the threat in law enforcement.
These CBP searches happen all the time near the Mexican border. I've been stopped at a few before traveling down there. The CBP checkpoints are permanent in some places, so there's plenty of people who have to go through it during their daily commutes.
Just south of Marfa, TX on the way back from a camping trip in Big Bend. CBP closes the northbound lanes of the highway and has a checkpoint that everyone has to pass through.
The fact that this happens at all should be constantly in the news. This is unconstitutional treatment of a US citizen and CBP clearly needs oversight.
It has never happened to me, and I have crossed borders 100+ times, mostly Europe to UK and South Africa. Worst is Israel, and their checks were believably focused on finding explosives.
It’s important for people to know that such behavior is not the norm among civilized countries.
Border Patrol has become the KGB. Hopefully this will reach a boiling point soon and they'll harass someone important enough to get the gears actually moving toward ending this madness.
No. If they find someone important they just let him go with an apology. Penn Jillette fought them years ago and refused their apology; it went nowhere.
It's analogous to police "searching" a homeless person by throwing, tearing up and destroying all of their property without even reasonable suspicion... they do it and get away with murdering people time-after-time because they can under a thinly-duplicitous cover of qualified immunity (at least in the US).
Although police at the borders don't have to have any reasonable suspicion for searches, racial profiling, secret watch lists and targeted intimidation are a likely consequent of an unfettered military-industrial complex that long since ceased to do more than security theater and carry water for the corporate elites. So it should come with zero surprise that such an empire's law enforcement acts with impunity however it pleases and only ensures to "serve and protect" the rich elites' and their property, effectively creating a socioeconomic apartheid of gated communities and post-apocalyptic anarchist favelas, both in terms of geography and public discrimination, that tears a society apart into a failed, third-world, backwards country.
They didn't even give him the chance to make a call. You're completely helpless unless you've done your research and come up with a game plan ahead of time.
Going on a trip in the short term and just got a phone with facial recognition unlock. I think it's important to turn this feature off before returning to the US as it could easily be misused in this exact situation.
On an iPhone, you can tap the power button five times consecutively to disable biometric access. However, I think the only way to do this on a MacBook with TouchID is turning it off.
This needs to be challenged to the Supreme Court level whereby it is deemed unconstitutional for TSA agents to detain and seize people and their possessions without actual demonstrable cause relating to national security and/or the spirit of the law(s) governing their policies and procedure.
If overly broad legislation is being abused against the spirit and intention of it, then the court needs to step in to legally to rule that this cannot be done, so long as such finding is in line with the constitution.
i love how “the time is long overdue”. everyone says that when it happens to them. he’s not wrong, but we need more folks that don’t sit around as if it’s someone else’s problem.
Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant or not?
> Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant or not?
IIRC, if you're a citizen, they have the power to seize your devices (and anything else you have, for that matter) and temporarily delay/detain you, but not to force you to unlock anything. They can't deny you entry.
If you're not a citizen, then they can deny you entry. So you might have to choose to unlock your devices for them to return home to the US or avoid having your travel plans ruined.
Indeed, they can not "force" you to unlock the device, however they can deny you entry to the country unless you open the device (although it seems this has not been thoroughly tested in the courts).
U.S. Citizens: You only have to answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship (in addition to customs-related questions). Refusal to answer other questions may cause delay, but officials may not deny you entry into the U.S. if you have established your identity and citizenship.
Or in the case for a lot of workers on visas in the valley: Lose your job. They deny entry, put you on a blacklist that guarantees the same treatment every time you try to re-enter. You either comply or you are effectively banned from the country.
I guess the problem is less their desire to search the devices (even though it might still be a problem) and more the "3 armed brutes making demands and refusing access to a lawyer".
The latter sounds more like thuggery than rule of law.
Border responses are little different to the support the average person gets from a tech giant. You get the response you get and that’s it. You need deep pockets, serious friends or an online furore or you have no choice but to remain oblivious. As with the tech giants, for the decent people caught up by mistake, it’s frustrating and terrifying.
CBP/TSA/DHS are thugs who have virtually unlimited power, zero accountability, and relish the chance to abuse their power. Its no different from cops celebrating killing innocent people.
The US media is a joke, they drump up fear without holding anyone in govt accountable, and the people are stupid, no one cares about this kind of thing, they'd rather believe the usual nonsense about 'keeping us safe'.
> The customs agents did however keep my Global Entry card as a punishment
?????
You never need your global entry card at airport customs because your flight information is encoded to your passport, which the machine scans.
Was that supposed to be punishment? Why did he even have it? Does the Global Entry number still work and automatically give you TSA Pre on the new tickets you purchase?
I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry, which they can do arbitrarily and I'd be surprised if "you didn't comply with our arbitrary demands" wasn't explicitly listed as one of the specific examples of reasons for revoking it.
instead of assuming can we get an answer? OP? ACLU? The author mentioned he has taken flights since then, he should be able to answer if he still gets TSA Pre, nobody's asked yet
its just as likely that they literally only took the card from him.
Are you in the process of trying to get it reinstated, or not yet? (The ACLU letter doesn't seem to include a demand for reinstating it, but I guess you'd be approaching it in some other way)
He's saying he was targeted because he's known to disapprove of the Trump administration? Please. If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016.
A better question would be why someone technically knowledgeable would be carrying a laptop through airline security at all. As soon as it's out of your hands, you have to assume it's been blown, security-wise. Far better to just buy a burner Chromebook at your destination.
Taking a laptop through airport security as a carry-on doesn't involve letting it out of your hands. (I assume they do not hire hobbits to hide inside the X-ray machine and implant hardware on your motherboard.)
Let's just say I have a lot or respect for the possibilities I'm aware of, together with a general sense that there's a lot that I don't know.
In any case, just because you usually get your laptop handed right back, it doesn't follow that you always will. If it matters to you, buy that burner.
1. I can expect that there's a chance that my laptop will be taken from me (and perhaps returned modified or perhaps taken permanently) while still not being okay with that. It's one thing to expect a right to be violated; it's another thing to give up.
2. It's not unreasonable to travel with a laptop while expecting a small chance that it's taken, in which case you'll buy a new one and restore from backup, instead of buying a burner every time.
1. Indeed, I'm only talking about is, not ought. Please do complain. Leave Trump out, though. Nothing he can do about it, and if he seriously tried, he'd wake up with a horse's head in his bed.
2. If you truly believe your laptop is clean and encryption sufficiently uncrackable, go ahead. I don't think I'm that smart, myself.
> If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016.
I would have been seriously surprised if CBP cared about who donated to Democratic candidates — but then, the IRS under Mr. Obama did attack Republican groups, with very few negative consequences for the culprits, as did the Milwaukee DA. I really hope that bad precedent has not led to further bad behaviour. The rule of law is important, no matter who you are, and abusing the coercive power of the State for political ends moves us one step closer to the unthinkable.
That page doesn't say that: regarding the September 2017 Treasury Department investigation, it states 'The 115 page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature.'
Which doesn't, I think, directly disagree with what I wrote.
Notably, the page also indicates that in October 2017 President Trump's administration admitted the previous administration's wrongdoing and settled the ongoing cases. Of course, it's in their interest to admit that Mr. Obama's administration had done wrong regardless.
If it was a legitimate search with real public security purpose, there is no excuse for letting him go without completing the search.
If it was not a legitimate search with real public purpose, there is no excuse for the threats or retaliation.
Irrespective of the legitimacy of the search, the behavior here is unjustifiable.