So, uh, what right to be secure in person and property without a warrant approved by a judge?
The US Bill of Rights was so contentious at the time and the supporters so adamant that they ended up being the first 10 amendments to our constitution. The supporters could have very well held out and either forced them to be included in the constitution or left us with the original Articles of Confederation (not the Southern State's one) but compromised. Even if the Bill of Rights were in the constitution, and not amendments, I expect they would be just as disposable.
And for what? So the DEA and CIA can continue to operate with the same privilege as the East India Company?
How does this, or the drug war, serve the average American? I do not for a second believe this provides any benefit to the average American. I do believe it will allow executive agencies privileged access to markets and information of felonious goods, likely to their benefit and not the citizens.
Imagine living in NYC, hopping on a subway car to go to work from your apartment in the Bronx, and getting stopped/searched by CBP, agents seizing your cell phone and laptop, and demanding your social media account passwords and threatening to detain you if you don't comply: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/give-...
It's fucking insane that US citizens are now advised to make sure a family member, friend, or attorney is aware of you traveling across a US border in case you're detained.
This country just keeps slipping further and further towards fascism.
Don't forget that CBP has essentially unlimited vehicle search authority within 100 miles of federal borders.
I don't think you read your own link.
"The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area."
>The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area.
Laws differ between ports of entry and interior checkpoints.
>It's fucking insane that US citizens are now advised to make sure a family member, friend, or attorney is aware of you traveling across a US border in case you're detained.
You have always been advised to leave emergency contact information with someone when traveling abroad, and also to register with the US embassy at your destination if it's an extended stay. Most people don't bother because usually nothing happens and they come back in one piece, but who knows if some deity of the day decided that this was your turn to get fucked, after all?
This is all just long standing common sense grounded in practical reality.
The issue they always raise is that encryption that is properly implemented (along with the relevant devices that are encrypted properly) is effectively unbreakable and equals a "get out of jail free" card to the extent that it invalidates the second half of the statement (without a warrant approved by a judge) which grants lawful justification for invalidating that right/protection.
I think this is a part of what's driving the adoption of passkeys (which seem to only require biometrics) because the biometrics part invaliates the entire protection (producing your fingerprint or face is not protected, only speech/testimonial). They eliminate phishing (unlawful theats) and facillitate bypassing encryption (lawful threats), no matter how strong.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ***PAPERS***, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
... from a time when all communication occurred via writing upon paper.
The US Bill of Rights was so contentious at the time and the supporters so adamant that they ended up being the first 10 amendments to our constitution. The supporters could have very well held out and either forced them to be included in the constitution or left us with the original Articles of Confederation (not the Southern State's one) but compromised. Even if the Bill of Rights were in the constitution, and not amendments, I expect they would be just as disposable. And for what? So the DEA and CIA can continue to operate with the same privilege as the East India Company?
How does this, or the drug war, serve the average American? I do not for a second believe this provides any benefit to the average American. I do believe it will allow executive agencies privileged access to markets and information of felonious goods, likely to their benefit and not the citizens.