← Back to context

Comment by dmitrygr

9 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

9 comments

dmitrygr

Reply
eqvinox  8 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  7 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.

    • eqvinox  6 hours ago

      > Any country can reject non-citizen entry, for any reason or no reason at all. […] This necessarily includes border controls, which any country can decide to make as onerous as they please.

      Or, a country could set rules that specify what they will and won't do as part of their entry controls. Just because it's a kind of an "absolute" power doesn't mean you can't still self-impose rules. The benefit being attracting more leisure and business travellers.

      1 reply →

garciansmith  9 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  8 hours ago

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

netsharc  9 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  9 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  9 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...