← Back to context

Comment by netsharc

5 hours ago

How about the US? What I'm going to write smells of "whataboutism", but it's tragic how more and more of the world is becoming police states. Going to the USA, they want your social media accounts. Regardless of that, the border thugs can probably demand you unlock your devices or they'll detain you for weeks on end, without any repercussions, because that sort of lawlessness is government policy now.

10 comments

netsharc

Reply
dmitrygr  5 hours ago

In the US, not disclosing a password is explicitly protected (5th amndmnt), SCOTUS has been clear. not so for biometrics, but so for PIN/passwd

  • eqvinox  4 hours ago

    > In the US, not disclosing a password is explicitly protected (5th amndmnt),

    That's great but of exactly zero help if you're trying to travel to the US and CBP (or ICE) are staring you down. Even if they don't gulag you, they can always just reject entry for any non-citizen (and these days even some citizens it seems.)

    • dmitrygr  3 hours ago

      Any country can reject non-citizen entry, for any reason or no reason at all. In fact, part of a definition of a country is ability to practice control over its territory and who is and is not there. This necessarily includes border controls, which any country can decide to make as onerous as they please. No non-citizen of a country has any right to be present in it, except as permitted by its government, so any country if free to make it as hard as they wish to enter for non-citizens. This may not be a good idea, but control over a territory is literally part of the definition.

      2 replies →

  • garciansmith  5 hours ago

    They have? What was the relevant case? It was my understanding that some lower courts have ruled one way, others the opposite. There are also many nuances in particular cases (e.g., the police wanting a broad search of a device for something that may or may not be there versus them knowing for a fact a device has certain information they want).

  • danlitt  4 hours ago

    The 5th amendment only protects citizens, and we are only talking about visiting (as far as I can tell).

  • netsharc  5 hours ago

    Ah yes, the US government still respects the 5th amendment... like they respect the other amendments as well as the constitution.

    The constitution doesn't say shooting citizens is illegal, right?

    • plagiarist  4 hours ago

      Federal agents couldn't possibly have been aware that executing people on the streets is a violation of those people's rights, so they are covered by QI.

  • comboy  5 hours ago

    Haha, here's some random AI generated content:

        At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration's mandatory immigration detention policy likely violates the right to due process[1] The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause generally requires those having federal funds cut off to receive notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which was not provided in many of DOGE's spending freezes[2]

    (there's more but what's the point)

    1. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...

    2. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/many-trump-admi...