[iwalsh]

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.

[onetimemanytime]

>>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.

[mcherm]

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.

[oldandtired]

Having the system have an ability to log all accesses after switching on get past this problem. As the logs will be proof the system was searched while not in your hands.

[mcherm]

Does the system have such an ability?

I can't exactly go re-write iOS or Android (technically, I suppose I could do the latter) in order to add this feature.

[iwalsh]

>"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?

[dragonwriter]

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

It's a seizure whether or not they looked through it, and it's a search if they examined—by any means, technical or otherwise—the contents in a way they wouldn't have been practically able to without seizing it, irrespective of whether they opened it (and even more independent of whether they claim they opened it.)

[justinjlynn]

> 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.

[justinjlynn]

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.

[HedgeSparrow]

I've got a question: to what extent can they dish up the "Terms of Service" argument? That is, can they refuse to fly you (domestic) if you refuse to comply because it's a "term of service"?

Is there any niddling contract law in purchasing plane tickets?

[lovich]

Isn't the argument that every international airport constitutes a border, and every mile of beach, and every mile of an actual border? That zone covers the majority of the population of the US constantly.

[oldandtired]

Don't you mean any area within 100 miles of the borders? That means some states are completely within this region and are all subject to border searches.

[justinjlynn]

I would love to see the government attempt to defend such a stance in front of the supreme court. I have a sneaking suspicion there'd be a major judicial shitfit on that.

Chief Justice would probably be all: "LOL, you did wut? ಠ_ಠ"

[oldandtired]

The problem is that they don't have to (yet). They do it now and get away with it and currently with impunity. If I recall correctly, there is a case in Texas about the matter, but that is the only one I know of at the moment.

[justinjlynn]

This is a concern, yes.

[pentagonpapers]

...

[pentagonpapers]

deleting this comment as i will by flying a few weeks

[justinjlynn]

this is exactly what you shouldn't be afraid of.

[reaperducer]

>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]

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.