Questions for TSA after reports of laptop and phone searches on domestic flights

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/tsa-surveillance-laptops-cellphones-domestic-flights

by pmoriarty • 8 years ago

207 203 8 years ago

derefr3• 8 years ago

A devil's advocate argument, for people to have something explicit to rebut here:

One of the guises state police operate under in America is the "highway patrol"—a force that searches for terrorists and drug trafficking and the like.

And presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car is. (Or is it? Taking public transit is a right that can't be denied to someone unless they explicitly break a rule of the system. But airports are private companies...)

So, given that, is there a legal reason that there is no "airway patrol"?

I'm not suggesting they have the powers of random search & seizure that the TSA seems to have, mind you. But should there be state police that are stationed at airports, who search people when they have probable cause?

anthonybsd• 8 years ago

That seems reaching to me. After all, highway patrol cannot simply start going through your belongings without probable cause which has a potential to be tested in court. Same rights are clearly not afforded to the air travelers in TSA interactions which seem to exist in a legal limbo right now.

solotronics• 8 years ago

actually they can and do every day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

"In May 2010 a couple was driving from New York to Florida and they were stopped by police because of a cracked windshield. During questioning, the officer decided that $32,000 cash in the van was "probably involved in criminal or drug-related activity", seized it, shared it with federal authorities under equitable sharing. The victim hired a lawyer to get back the seized money who urged settling for half of the seized amount, and after the lawyer's fees, the victim got back only $7,000."

alehul• 8 years ago

As a followup to this (and response to preceding comment), a quick Google search shows that all airports aside from one in the US are owned by the government, which I believe must meet certain standards that we don't require of private entities in terms of rights of access.

jMyles2• 8 years ago

Presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car is.

Freedom of movement is a privilege, not a right? What can you possibly be talking about?

Did I miss a memo? The United States (and other common law societies) have a long history of enshrining freedom of movement as a fundamental right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

Also, be reminded that the USA voted in favor of the UDHR, which reads in part:

* a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others

and

* and that a citizen also has the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country at any time.

brokensegue4• 8 years ago

freedom of movement \neq freedom to fly though

neo4sure• 8 years ago

Freedom of movement was a privilege in the old soviet union. Maybe we are slowly becoming the USSR?

jklinger4104• 8 years ago

You can move, but not necessarily in car. Or on a plane. And you can't walk on the highways or near the rail road tracks or in the road. And you will be stopped if an officer sees you walking alone on a country road. And that's probable cause right there. Don't go wandering in the woods, lots of privately owned property there as well.

I'm sorry, you said something about moving?

derefr3• 8 years ago

Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right to post to a private, commercial forum.

What freedom of movement does guarantee, to be clear, is that you're:

1. allowed to own your own plane;

4. allowed to fly said plane over pretty much any American airspace, other than specific little zones cordoned off by the military;

2. allowed to have your own airfield to launch and land your plane;

3. allowed to use the airfield of any American airport to launch/land your plane (at least in an emergency.)

With your own plane—just like with your own car—you have freedom of movement in the US.

ctrl-j• 8 years ago

It occurs to me that America has, in every state, a state-run "highway patrol" that searches for terrorists and drug trafficking and the like.

The state-run highway patrol is still subject to the 4th amendment (search and seizure.)

If you get pulled over by a LEO - they need consent, probable cause, or a warrant in order to rifle through your belongings.

cryoshon3• 8 years ago

they need consent, probable cause, or a warrant in order to rifle through your belongings.

which they can invent with no problem if they feel like it.

nobody who declines to a search gets away with it; they just call a drug dog to alert and then they can search anyway.

maxerickson• 8 years ago

How come that thing that is a thing isn't a thing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service

4,000 law enforcement officers.

But that is separate from what powers we as a society should allow them.

derefr3• 8 years ago

The Air Marshals are literal peace officers—there to stop crime that happens in the air. Completely separate from the idea of a highway patrol, which is there—in essence—to be a permanent dragnet for BOLOs, and to (probabilistically) be witness to statutory crimes/regulatory violations (e.g. dumping of industrial waste) where no individual victim is going to report them.

testvox2• 8 years ago

My city Boston will tresspass you from the subway and bus system if you refuse to submit to a search of your bags at the checkpoints they set up at certain stations. So I don't think you are correct about public transportation.

iwalsh3• 8 years ago

It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search.

However, from a security perspective it would be awful if they could disappear with your device whenever they wanted - that certainly makes me uncomfortable.

justinjlynn7• 8 years ago

taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search

If it's optional and I can and will refuse, fine. If it's not,and I'm not attempting to cross a border, they can get stuffed.

For domestic travel, they do not need to examine the data - only the physical device needs to be examined to rule out security risk. They can do that non-intrusively with imaging and chemical analysis technology.

The idea that someone could claim that a limited intrusion into the contents of my communications isn't an intrusion at all is absurd.

pentagonpapers3• 8 years ago

...

justinjlynn7• 8 years ago

I should clarify: If them looking through my data is not optional and I can't refuse, and I'm not at a border crossing (which is still bullshit imo, but well trodden precedent), they'd better have goddamn signed warrant.

onetimemanytime3• 8 years ago

>It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search.

Not likely to work: "We just want to search your house for 30 minutes" or "you can have your document back after we photocopy it, so no warrant needed."

The idea is that they cannot do certain things without a warrant.

mcherm4• 8 years ago

I think the fear is that the TSA will deny having searched the phone and the complaintant will have not way of proving that they did.

iwalsh3• 8 years ago

"We just want to search your house for 30 minutes" or "you can have your document back after we photocopy it, so no warrant needed."

This scenario would be quite a bit more akin to "let me have that locked briefcase you're carrying through security, no need for you to unlock it" and then returning it to you locked after 10 minutes.

Was that a 4th amendment search if they claim that they didn't look through your briefcase?

reaperducer4• 8 years ago

It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search.

I wonder how long it would take to clone a phone and give back a ringer with some extra software installed. It's not like most people know the serial number of their phone. And if the phone's in a case, then put the ringer in the target phones case, and it has the same look and feel.

khedoros1• 8 years ago

What about authentication details held in the "secure enclave", or equivalent? If they can unlock my phone, I think it would be faster and easier to just install their "extra software", rather than the technical difficulties involved in transparently replacing the hardware with a new copy of the same thing.

Especially if I've got a semi-obscure phone in an unpopular color. That's at the level of a targeted attack against an individual.

ghostbrainalpha2• 8 years ago

I am TOTALLY ok with TSA reading my last text messages before I go on a flight.

Those last few texts someone sends before committing a terrorist action, could send an extremely strong signal to authorities and possibly prevent a disaster.

If the extra security results in a strange TSA agent getting to enjoy some surprise dick pics, well that's the price of freedom Jerry.

jjulius2• 8 years ago

If the extra security results in a strange TSA agent getting to enjoy some surprise dick pics, well that's the price of freedom Jerry.

I wouldn't say that someone has 'freedom' if they're being forced to possibly have their body visibly exposed to strangers against their will.

opportune• 8 years ago

If regular people wanted freedom, they would just fly private!

pentagonpapers3• 8 years ago

isn't that what those scanners do lol?

manjushri• 8 years ago

If dick picks are fair game I think we should all be required to strip naked and submit to cavity inspections for the security screening process. Because that's how we've managed to keep our prisons 100% contraband free.

gambiting• 8 years ago

I mean sure, my parents grew up knowing that the secret police was listening to every phone call and opening every letter, but it was fine because you know, whatever keeps the motherland safe I guess!

RightMillennial• 8 years ago

At that point you might as well advocate for the NSA to preapprove all text messages before being relayed to the recipient (provided that isn't already the case). Maybe the TSA could sell that as another perk to get through security faster. I'll take more privacy over a fake sense of security, thank you.

fenwick67• 8 years ago

Do you really think random terrorists are dumb enough to send text messages like "so how's your terrorist attack going?" or "don't forget the bomb!"?

jstarfish2• 8 years ago

Absolutely.

Perhaps not in those terms, but amateur OPSEC failures have sunk more than one criminal enterprise.

ch4s3• 8 years ago

The TSA's own research points out that their criteria for search doesn't work[1]. The whole thing is a sad farce that adds no real security.

[1]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-stor...

dawnerd2• 8 years ago

no.

deadmetheny• 8 years ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

mulmen4• 8 years ago

The price of freedom cannot be freedom itself.

jancsika2• 8 years ago

But it could be a reference to freedom. :)

mcherm4• 8 years ago

I am TOTALLY ok with TSA reading my last text messages before I go on a flight.

That's cool, and I respect that. But I am NOT OK with the TSA performing such a search of my devices. (Unless they have a warrant. Then I'm fine with it. It's really that I'm a stickler about this old document called the "Constitution")

Are you willing to stand up for MY right for my (electronic) papers and effects to be secure from unreasonable searches? If not, are there other parts of the Constitution you would be willing to jettison?

(For what it's worth, this is a genuine question not just a complaint. There are parts of the Constitution that I would prefer to change -- just not this particular one.)

komali24• 8 years ago

Is every person in your contact list ok with it?

Is your partner, who sent you private pictures, ok with it?

Is your company ok with internal emails being read by the TSA?

Does giving access to your accounts on certain apps and websites to the TSA violate the TOS of any of those apps or websites?

Chaebixi2• 8 years ago

Soon to be in the terrorist's opsec handbook: don't fly with the phone you use to talk terrorist ringleaders.

acct17712• 8 years ago

Not sure if you're kidding, but if you're not, there'd be no terrorist attacks at all if we were all locked in our own individual rooms with only telescreens to communicate with each other through.

Maybe we should take a serious look at that. It could seriously protect tens of thousands!

jMyles2• 8 years ago

Domestic flights? Wow.

Since this is a different agency than typically conducts (similarly intrusive and seemingly illegal) searches in the case of international flights, I wonder if they are following a common protocol? If so, who creates that?

I'm about to fly internationally for the first time in a while; anybody have any advice on how to handle my devices?

ep103• 8 years ago

hidden partitions, and/or storing all your important data off-device are the two pieces of advice that get suggested the most.

lisper5• 8 years ago

I would strongly recommend the latter. Hidden partitions are trivial to find.

I recommend one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/MyDigitalSSD-480GB-SuperSpeed-Portabl...

Keep it encrypted and in your pocket.

eli• 8 years ago

Presumably whatever forensic tools they have will easily detect hidden partitions.

The advice I hear for international travelers is disk encryption + FedEx'ing your laptop to its destination.

bibhjbdjbd• 8 years ago

Most people access email through their phone.

Giving up your phone also means they get a complete copy of your email.

If you use a VPN to access company servers they will swoop up that information as well, and by extension all server side data your VPN credentials Grant access.

They may not be doing all that, but it's only a matter of time and knowledge given their lack of constraints.

mylons• 8 years ago

potentially naive question, but doesn't apple encrypt devices? and will my iphone X be good if i refuse to open it for law enforcement?

akl• 8 years ago

The EFF does: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/digital-privacy-us-border...

arca_vorago• 8 years ago

Stop flying so much and tell them when the time comes fuckoff and come back with a warrant or at least get an officer who can explain under what authority do they conduct domestic searches without a warrant, ergo, unconstitutionally?

Ah, you know what, I get it. They want to bring back the 90's cryptowars. They will lose again.

reaperducer4• 8 years ago

Stop flying so much and tell them when the time comes fuckoff and come back with a warrant

In other words, stop flying completely. Because with that reaction, you're not getting in the plane.

graeme2• 8 years ago

This is terribly dangerous advice for a border crossing.

paxunix• 8 years ago

Are you a white, casually-dressed male with an American-sounding name? If so, it is very unlikely your devices will be scrutinized at all. Outside of that, the probability increases (sometimes by a lot). Hacker News likes to see the long arm of the law reaching into their personal lives where it almost never does. This isn't to say we should like--nor even tolerate--when it does, but you can probably just pack all your usual travel items as you normally would for a domestic flight, and simply be on your way, unmolested.

Are you trying to bring 3 phones, 2 laptops, a tablet, 4 chargers, and assorted other electronics with you? Be prepared for the long arm to reach into your life because you're attracting suspicion. You would be attracting suspicion even without the current political climate, because that much equipment is outside the bounds of normal for your average traveller.

Be an average traveller and no one will give you a second glance.

warcop• 8 years ago

Surveillance Self-Defense https://ssd.eff.org/

pjc50• 8 years ago

"One woman who shared her story with the ACLU told the Guardian that in the last year, she has twice had her electronics searched while flying within California. The 64-year-old, who works in nonprofits and requested anonymity for fear that she could face further scrutiny from TSA, said that on one occasion last year, TSA agents pulled her aside to pat her down multiple times and eventually asked to see both her iPhones – a work and personal one."

I suspect it would be very revealing which nonprofit is involved here; this kind of harassment through scrutiny is a classic tactic against progressive groups.

gowld• 8 years ago

It's also a classic tactic against conservative groups.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

chillwaves3• 8 years ago

What a non story. The real story is that congress passes impossible to enforce legislation that cannot properly define which groups are political and which not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/liberal-groups-got-...

A federal watchdog has identified scores of cases in which the Internal Revenue Service may have targeted liberal-leaning groups for extra scrutiny based on their names or political leanings, a finding that could undermine claims that conservatives were unfairly targeted under President Barack Obama.

This is the kind of scandal the right clings to -- gov't bureaucrats trying to do their job.

"Classic tactic" for the gov't to target conservatives? You need to provide some real evidence or another example that pans out before making those kind of claims.

nickvanhoog• 8 years ago

I wouldn't say "classic" since you're referring to fairly recent events. If I had to guess, the OP was speaking about mid-20th century targeting of progressive groups by US law enforcement agencies (e.g. sending MLK fake hate mail whose intent, according to many, was to induce suicide).

ajross2• 8 years ago

Sorry, are you equating needless bureaucratic red tape in a non-profit's application for tax-exempt status to the seizure of a private citizen's phone and laptop?

dandersh• 8 years ago

It's not "classic" since the example used happened less than 10 years ago as well as also being applied to left-wing groups as well. [0]

What is classic about it is right wing media (especially in the talk radio era) hyperventilating and manufacturing a scandal where "conservatives" are the victims.

Furthermore individuals/groups claiming tax exempt status where none exists is one of the things that the IRS should be looking for as an agency.

[0]https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/audit-irs-scrutiny...

mikeash8• 8 years ago

This article seems like it’s written to be deliberately confusing.

If I understand it correctly, the TSA is not forcing anyone to unlock devices. They take the devices away for some period, but if they’re securely locked, TSA won’t be able to get anything from them.

However, the article drops border searches which do require an unlock right into the middle of the article, then goes on to say that they have no specific examples of TSA doing the same thing. This implies that they have reason to believe it’s happening, but as far as I can see there’s no justification for that.

The big question is: what are they doing with these things? If it’s some fancy explosives sniffing (like they already do to my contact lens solution) then it’s nothing interesting. If it’s an electronic search if unsecured devices, that’s bad. If it’s an attempt to force travelers to unlock secured devices, that’s horrible. The article seems to want to portray it as the last one, while only giving evidence for one of the first two.

FireBeyond• 8 years ago

If I understand it correctly, the TSA is not forcing anyone to unlock devices.

I'm sure they also don't shrug their shoulders and say "Locked? Oh well.". Varying degrees of coercion, threat, implicit or otherwise, relying on passenger ignorance to their rights.

I wonder how many have unlocked it at their request too, which is specifically different from "forced".

mikeash8• 8 years ago

What makes you so sure of that? I’ve had them swab electronics for explosives before and they never even try to turn the things on. I’m pretty sure I’ve had them ask me once or twice to prove that a laptop was real by turning it on, and they never asked for it to be unlocked.

That’s my whole point: this article appears to be written to make you assume that a lot more is going on than they actually describe.

komali24• 8 years ago

coercion, threat

This is what bothers me the most about TSA and Border Agents stamping on rights - there's the implicit "we're going to waste at least 1,300$ of your money by forcing you to take another flight and rebook hotels." I get so stressed about it I show up at least 3 hours early for any flight, sometimes even 4 for international.

syshum2• 8 years ago

>They take the devices away for some period, but if they’re securely locked, TSA won’t be able to get anything from them.

You have no way of knowing that, or if they are doing anything to the hardware, cloning the SIM, adding tracking, or simply cloning the flash for possible evaluation later

Further it should be considered unconstitutional for them to even take it for 1 second.

If it’s some fancy explosives sniffing (like they already do to my contact lens solution) then it’s nothing interesting.

I would find it interesting and "bad", they should not need to remove the device from your view to do explosive sniffing.

It is very troubling to me how much invasion of and infringement on a persons liberties the average person is willing to accept in the name of Security Theater

mikeash8• 8 years ago

I trust the crypto used by my devices.

Searching electronics for explosives isn’t security theater. That’s a real threat vector and an effective counter to that threat.

nl• 8 years ago

Al-Shabaab used a laptop bomb on a plane out of Somalia after successfully getting it through X-ray machines. It blew a hole in the plane, but they managed to land it successfully.

Swabbing laptops for explosives doesn’t sound like security theatre to me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159

reaperducer4• 8 years ago

They take the devices away for some period, but if they’re securely locked, TSA won’t be able to get anything from them.

It is well documented that there is no cell phone that cannot be unlocked.

And once it's unlocked, who knows what the real goal is. On the surface, one suspects that it's to examine its contents. But other possibilities include sideloading spyware, or even targeted viruses. Some random NGO secretary may not be the actual target, but could be the vector that allows a program to spread to one or more other targets within or without the organization.

I liked it better when this was the sort of thing that people on shortwave radio with tinfoil hats would rant about. Now it's almost weekly headlines in the NY Times, Guardian, WSJ, etc...

mikeash8• 8 years ago

I’m not aware of anything better than brute force attacks for any vaguely recent iPhone.

throwaway613834• 8 years ago

It is well documented that there is no cell phone that cannot be unlocked.

Citation needed?

snowwrestler2• 8 years ago

It is well documented that there is no cell phone that cannot be unlocked.

Ok, probably true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any unlock can happen quickly, or that the TSA has that capability broadly deployed to agents, or that the TSA even wants to unlock devices.

coldcode• 8 years ago

They can have my device if necessary, however I will not give them the passcode without torture. They can add it to the pile.

mulmen4• 8 years ago

They can't have my device without a warrant. I'm not comfortable with them even taking it out of my sight or connecting it to anything. This is an agency that absolutely cannot be trusted.

lopmotr• 8 years ago

You'll miss your flight if you refuse. That's a lot of power they have over many people. It's expensive and you might not get to whatever was so important you flew there for.

baxtr• 8 years ago

The number of searches has increased quite a bit from 2016 to 2017

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele...

russ_ross• 8 years ago

No special knowledge, but willing to bet they are doing this on the basis of a specific threat. Much theatre, hoping it gets press, and intended as a deterrent based on information they've got they are concerned about. Otherwise its a lot of work for nothing.

cryoshon3• 8 years ago

idea: scrub all data and accounts from your electronics before flying.

leave your phone unlocked, but primed with a goatse booby trap so that the agents get an unpleasant surprise that's totally legal and comes with total deniability -- hey, you just loved goatse so that's why it's on your phone and laptop.

if the agent is offended, perhaps they should have minded their own fucking business.

onetimemanytime3• 8 years ago

> so that the agents get an unpleasant surprise

YOU will get the surprise: if you're a US citizen they cannot deny you entry to the USA but they can make your life miserable by searching and delaying you every single time.

If you're not a US citizen and try to be a "smartass," they have all the power to deny you entry in the USA. No appeals.

cryoshon3• 8 years ago

why would i get a surprise? i'm just an innocent citizen who loves goatse. there's no reason to single me out for harassment -- or if there IS, there's a lawsuit ready to go

jstarfish2• 8 years ago

if the agent is offended, perhaps they should have minded their own fucking business.

Exposing government agents to obscene or indecent content is not going to improve the outlook of your day.

TheCoelacanth2• 8 years ago

Or the outlook of the rest of your life.

shostack• 8 years ago

Is there an easy way to do this for Android devices that isn't horribly painful to relogin to everything with?

skrowl2• 8 years ago

Remember the 5th Amendment applies to passwords. No law enforcement officer may EVER compel you to log in to a device with a password / pass code / unlock pattern, for any reason.

greensoap• 8 years ago

In other words, don't enable touch id or face unlock.

cmsimike• 8 years ago

on iOS anyway, you can enable face id/touch id but specifically disable it from being able to log into the phone with it. You can then use face/touch id for authentication in apps.

komali24• 8 years ago

I'm trying to find the article now, but I recall reading that in the USA it's a lawful order to have you unlock your phone with a thumbprint, but not to unlock with a PIN code. God knows why.

Here: https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-suspect-...

Unsure about federal application, actually. We as country need to get our shit together regarding device privacy. You should need a warrant to look at a phone, laptop, whatever, with or without a password. The security of the device should be meaningless.

As for me, I'm grateful that I have the resources to push back should this ever happen to me, jailtime or included. That's a luxury probably very few Americans can realistically afford (seeing as they can just throw you in jail for 48 hours).

r00fus2• 8 years ago

Or at any checkpoint, simply shut down your device (or click power button 5x). Then they can have it, but it requires a passcode that is protected by the 5th amendment.

neuland2• 8 years ago

This is the way things should work. But, there was a widely reported case recently where a man accused of possessing child pornography has been held in jail for a long time [0]. From what I can tell, he's been in jail for contempt of court for nearly 2 and a half years!

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indef...

NegativeK• 8 years ago

That's because the issue is more complicated than any absolute statements.

One case decided that law enforcement can compel you to turn over documents that it knows you have possession of, regardless of where they exist. You're not testifying against yourself; you're turning over evidence.

Another case has decided that they can't compel you to turn over a password so they can search for evidence.

Mithorium• 8 years ago

If it's been 2 years, can they even prove that he can still remember the password? He hasn't had to use it for over 2 years, it would be entirely probable his memory of it has faded.

How about this theoretical situation: I place an encrypted file in a hard drive belonging to someone I dislike, and then frame them circumstantially with the likely possession of contraband data on said hard drive. Since he owns the device, he may be so unlucky as to have the authorities believe he knows how to decrypt the file despite him claiming he has no knowledge of how the file came to be or how to decrypt it. If they will not accept that argument, this seems like a good way to place a political opponent in jail indefinitely by someone with the means to craft such a scenario

AlexCoventry4• 8 years ago

What's the latest case law on this? I thought it was still unsettled, and there were a lot of confusing edge cases. E.g. https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/smartphone-passwords-const...

pdkl954• 8 years ago

I guess they didn't read Riley v California[1]. In the opinion of the SCOTUS:

Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple -- get a warrant.

Given that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled searching a phone without a warrant is unconstitutional incident to an arrest, the same requirement must also hold for Terry stops and simple safety inspections.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California

ProAm• 8 years ago

Im not sure that matters. They may make it a condition of travel; you do not have to let the TSA search your phone, but you will not be allowed to proceed into the airport without doing so.

That is what all the TSA searches have appeared like to me. Just a denial of service for maintaining a level of privacy.

John_KZ2• 8 years ago

This kind of argument is starting to piss me off. "You can express your freedom of speech, but not in this public park, because it's privately owned" "You can state your opinions, but not on this website, because dispite being a major communications hub on the internet, and despite advertising ourselves as a place of free expression, we actively derank, ban or erase any opinion we dislike" "You can decline the EULA, you just have to stop using our vital service" "You can maintain your privacy, but not if you want to travel" "You can buy a phone that doesn't collect metadata about you, you just have to break a $50 billion dollar lobby and manufacture your own IC. You still have the freedom of choice"

You know what, you really don't. Your rights aren't supposed to be just a legal burden to circumvent with various tricks, they're supposed to hold in all domains of public life. I want to be able to fly in a plane without having some asshole dig through my personal life. You think someone is dangerous? Check for bombs. Check for weapons. Why are they checking for beliefs? What kind of bullshit is this?

iwalsh3• 8 years ago

Unfortunately the same requirement isn't generally understood to hold in these circumstances.

For example, the 9th circuit court of appeals in U.S. vs Davis[1] held that airport searches are "administrative searches" and are permissible in much broader ways than searches while being arrested.

[1] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/04...

pdkl954• 8 years ago

From the section [7] of the conclusion (your link, last page):

The procedure is geared towards detection and deterrence of airborne terrorism [...] This was a limited search, confined in its intrusiveness (both in duration and scope) and in its attempt to discover weapons and explosives.³
³This would, perhaps, be a different case if there were improper motives established by the record below or argued in the briefs.

I'd like to know what "weapons and explosives" that might be useful for "airborne terrorism" the TSA thinks it might find buy searching the data on a laptop or phone.

oh_sigh2• 8 years ago

the same requirement must also hold for Terry stops and simple safety inspections.

You must show your work here.

pdkl954• 8 years ago

Terry stops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

A narrow search for weapons is permitted without probable cause, if the officer has "specific and articulable facts" that someone "may be armed and presently dangerous". Terry stops can allow a pat down for weapons; an actual search outside the scope of the immediate safety of the officer still requires probable cause and a warrant as usual (where the Riley decision would apply).

I'd like to know what kind of weapons the TSA might be looking for if the consider someone with a laptop or phone "armed and presently dangerous".

simple safety inspections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...

Briefly, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz allowed a brief questioning to gain "reasonable suspicion" of a crime (i.e. drunk driving), but only because it negligibly impacted 4th Amendment rights. Actual searches still required probable cause or arrest (Riley again), or the infamous "plain view" exception. Don't leave anything incriminating in "plain view" on your device's screen.

r00fus2• 8 years ago

Who here thought this was eventually going to happen for domestic flights after this started happening on international flights?

Taniwha• 8 years ago

Yet another reason to not fly through the US

sg0• 8 years ago

If office issued electronic devices (which presumably have to undergo routine organization-specific scrutiny, and may contain non-public info) are snatched by the TSA for random sniffing, why can't an organization sue the TSA for compromising security?

greggarious• 8 years ago

I wonder if they're imaging the device for later analysis.

I suspect they're not installing implants but it would make me nervous all the same about using that device in the future...

JshWright• 8 years ago

If I bring any personal equipment when I travel it's a "burner". I have a Chromebook running Debian that never has anything on it I care about (and only access personal stuff remotely via SSH, using a PGP key on a YubiKey). I carry an old phone, again with nothing on it I care about. Both devices are encrypted and powered off through security (and left off as much as possible when at the airport in general).

The most important characteristic of these devices is that I'm 100% happy to just walk away from them (and there are no easily recovered credentials for any "cloud based" services I use).

If I'm traveling for work (and have equipment that belongs to my employer with me), I am equally happy to walk away from those devices (though I'll also leave the contact info for my company's lawyer).

Questions for TSA after reports of laptop and phone searches on domestic flights

Related Stories