美国设备搜索边界点燃阻力

Aaron Gach wasn’t expecting U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to demand to search his smartphone when he returned to San Fransisco from Belgium in February.
The artist and magician, a U.S. citizen, had just attended an art event near Brussels and was targeted for advanced screening by CBP after his flight landed in the U.S. During a series of questions from CBP agents (“Did you pack your bag yourself?”), they repeatedly asked to search his smartphone, Gach said.
摩根士丹利华鑫基金李轶:债市机会与风险并重
“Do you understand that if you choose not to unlock your phone we may need to detain your other personal effects?” one agent told him, according to a description of the encounter that Gach posted online.
Gach, who travels frequently, was shocked and surprised by the demand to search his device, he said in an interview. He initially resisted, saying a search would violate his privacy, but eventually relented by unlocking his phone for the agents, who then took the phone out of his sight for about 10 minutes.
Gach, working with the American Civil Liberties Union to protest the search, “felt pretty coerced” into turning over the phone, he said. “On the whole, I find that situation pretty upsetting.”
Why resist the search? The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, protecting residents against unreasonable searches and seizures is “pretty clear,” he said. 
系统被爆出安全漏洞后,要积极利用这一事件,借助媒体通知用户详情,快速发布修复程序以及教育受影响用户才是负责任的组织该走的正道。
“Either you have rights, or you don’t have rights,” Gach added. “Standing up for your rights is not an admission of guilt or innocence.”
Gach’s position is echoed by digital rights groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Under current guidelines, CBP can search a device without “any suspicion” of a crime and with no court-ordered warrant, said Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
“We think that’s a Fourth Amendment violation,” she said. “They can essentially conduct these searches in a suspicionless manner for no reason at all.”
But CBP and the U.S. Supreme Court see fewer Fourth Amendment protections for people, including U.S. citizens, when they’re crossing into the country. As the EFF notes, the Supreme Court allows for a “border search exception” to normal search warrant requirements because the government has an interest in protecting the “integrity of the border” by enforcing immigration and customs laws. 
Aaron Gach没想到 美国海关和边境保护局要求搜查他的智能手机,当他回到旧金山在二月从比利时。
艺术家和魔术师,一个美国人,刚参加了布鲁塞尔附近的一个艺术活动,目标是P先进筛选后,他的航班降落在美国的一系列从代理问题P(“你带你的 袋吗?”),他们多次要求搜查他的手机,Gach说。
“你知道,如果你选择不解锁你的手机,我们可能需要扣留你的其他个人影响?”一个经纪人告诉他,根据描述的遭遇GACH网上发布。
Gach,经常旅行的人,感到震惊和惊讶的需求来搜索他的装置,他在接受采访时说。他起初表示反对,说搜索会侵犯他的隐私,但最终通过给代理人解锁手机的态度缓和下来,然后他把手机从他的视线中看了分钟。
Gach,与美国公民自由联盟抗议搜索,“感觉很强迫”变成了电话,他说。”总的来说,我觉得这种情况相当令人沮丧。”
为什么抵制搜索?美国宪法第四修正案,保护居民对 无理搜查和扣押是“很明显的,”他说。 

“要么你有权利,你没有权利,“Gach说。”坚持自己的权利不是承认有罪或无罪。”
GACH的位置由像美国公民自由联盟和电子前沿基金会数字权利组织呼应。在现行准则下P可以没有任何怀疑的“犯罪和没有法院命令令搜索装置,说਎SHA Bhandari,一个美国公民自由联盟的律师演讲,员工隐私,技术项目。
“我们认为这是四分之一修正案违反,”她说。他们基本上可以进行搜索的方式在不怀疑的理由都没有。”
P和美国最高法院看到 较少的第四修正案保护的人,包括美国的公民,当他们进入该国。正指出,最高法院允许一个“边界搜索例外”正常的搜查令的要求,因为政府有兴趣在保护“完整的边界”的执行移民和海关法。 
上网闲逛对于恢复活力起到了重要的作用。您相信么?过份严格的上网监管会引发员工的不满,进而降低工作效率,与实施控管系统的初衷背道而驰,劳逸结合,需要找到好的平衡点。

猜您喜欢

南湖社区开展 注重信息安全 谨防网络诈骗讲座
信息安全意识教育“对话体”教程面世
实施华丽的EHS意识培训,只需三步!
俄媒:马克龙是奥朗德翻版 两人讲话几乎一模一样
OWNLOG DAVESAUTOMOTIVE
如何从手机电子钱包中偷钱