[kkop]

Much of the "we stand up to authority" hubbub of US security researchers and developers is mostly an act. The sentiment is there to comfort the participants and validate their existence, just like in many other industries. While I hope I am wrong I wouldn't expect people not to fold when it matters. Somewhat understandably so since the current alternative is arguably, or at least ultimately, exile.

Just look at this situation. Unless hotel security have been breaking the law, which is unlikely, staying at these hotels means they can legally search your room and possibly your things. The only thing standing in the way of this is the reaction from the organizers and attendees. So if you care about your rights you don't really have much of a choice than to react and moving, at least out of Las Vegas, shouldn't be a hard decision.

And this would be illegal in at least part of Europe since a hotel room is categorized as a temporary residence.

[halbritt]

The fourth amendment absolutely applies to hotel rooms.

https://www.gsblaw.com/duff-on-hospitality-law/guest-room-pr...

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048...

From my very basic understanding of what transpired, the hotel security were trespassing by entering a rented room. I'm not altogether familiar with state law in Nevada, but that could certainly be argued in California.

[dreamcompiler]

Exactly. Cops can't break into a hotel room without a warrant, but agents of the management might be able to, depending on local laws. The 4A doesn't apply to them.

[FlipperBucket]

> The fourth amendment absolutely applies to hotel rooms.

Hotel Security aren't the federal government. The 4th amendment? C'mon.

[tibbon]

Eh, and Feds aren't state/muni cops either; but both of the latter still have to follow the 4th (in theory).

FWIW; at camping festivals, I know your tent also is a temporary residence and requires a warrant for search.

[alexbecker]

That's because the 14th Amendment extends the "due process" requirement to the states, and under the [Incorporation Doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine) respecting the 4th Amendment has been considered part of "due process".

[halbritt]

Agreed. I was suggesting that this was a 4a issue, but replying to he comment above that we have protections similar to the ones in their country.

As I mentioned, this sounds like a case of trespassing. If it were me, I’d be pursuing charges on that basis.

[bjt2n3904]

> Much of the "we stand up to authority" hubbub of US security researchers and developers is mostly an act.

Source, go through the body scanners at the TSA. Worn down, can't be bothered to "echo FUUUUUUUU > /dev/null" any more.

[Bartweiss]

Surely this mostly depends on what you care about? Refusing to unlock a device at the border has much heavier (potential) consequences than requesting an alternate search, but I think there are a lot of people who willingly go through body scanners and wouldn't unlock a device.