Oddbean new post about | logout
 Big Privacy Ruling in US Federal Court:

Customs agents now need a warrant to search your phone...

Quick Recap:

--New York Airport agents identified a man as a "potential" child abuse purchaser
--The agents forced him to unlock his phone.
--They found he did indeed have four videos of child sexual abuse [1]
--Despite an earlier 2021 ruling that border agents can search without a warrant, this federal judge ruled the other way. [2]

Quote:
“In light of the record before this Court regarding the vast potential scope of a so-called ‘manual’ search, the distinction between manual and forensic searches is too flimsy a hook own which to hang a categorical exemption to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. And it is one that may collapse altogether as technology evolves.” [2]

In other words,
If we continue like this, then as the tech changes, the Fourth Amendment is gone.

Final Thoughts:
This is a mixed bag right?  Because it's good legal news, but doesn't make you want to get that excited about it because they did find child abuse content.  However, ultimately it's still a win for freedom because this same ruling will carry over to our cryptocurrency wallets, our private messages, and all aspects of our digital lives globally.  While it's bad that child abuse went free today, it would have been far worse if there was no 4th amendment, and we have no right to privacy.

Sources:

[1] https://www.techspot.com/news/104041-judge-rules-warrantless-phone-searches-customs-agents-violate.html
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/29/24209130/customs-border-protection-unlock-phone-warrant-new-york-jfk 
 So I read about this ruling. Interestingly, the judge ruled that the prosecution can use the evidence they found, because they acted in good faith according to legal precedent at the time. So the guy won't walk free, it's just that going forward they can't force you to unlock your phone without a warrant.

It looks like the judge did this because he didn't want the guy to go free. I think I'm glad he won't but that it is very unusual for a judge to do something like that. I don't know how legally sound such a decision is.