Starship will soon be flinging stuff into space for pennies, which will also mean weight optimizations will be less necessary, so we can get better telescopes into orbit for much cheaper.
I have yet to see this "space for pennies" that people keep claiming. The last estimate put Starship launch costs at $100M per launch. Has Starship actually launched a satellite? From what I can tell they are 5 for 13 in test launches with no payload. Total program cost has been $15B so far.
I was (as a citizen) given the voluntary option to correct the paperwork issues. Or to be subjected to searches and questioning.
What paperwork are you talking about? You have not provided any background. In the case of Turnick, he was a US citizen entering the US after a vacation.
And that offer is not even what they are supposed to do. They're legally supposed to just take your stuff and hold you for questioning.
1) Under certain provisions they can take certain things. They cannot just take your stuff. As for questioning, the problem for the US is they are claiming it was a random stop and also not a random stop depending on which argument looks better. It was random therefore they could search and seize. But Customs said it looking for CSAM materials due to a tip. 2) Border and Customs can seize certain things. They cannot seize anything they want.
After researching it, there was really little I could do. The statute is pretty clear for about 80% of what went down.
You have not detailed anything about our situation and just expect us to read your mind.
Having stuff that matters on your phone is like storing drugs in your car, you can but nothing makes that smart.
Who gets to decide what "matters"? The government does. In this case the defendant thinks the government wants messages and identities of other protestors. The government may be able to get the information with a warrant; they have clearly decided to use the guise of border crossing to obtain that information instead without a warrant.
Well, they might legally detain your jersey, and seize it after verification, if they suspect it's a counterfeit that violates IP rights. But that would come under "illicit" items.
Customs has to prove it is counterfeit then the item has to be destroyed. Considering the vast number of authentic and not authentic jerseys, that would be a monumental task for one jersey. An agent can't take home a jersey because they want. Customs agents generally do not seize single counterfeit items. They seize shipments of lots of counterfeit items. A box of 100 counterfeit jerseys maybe. A single one in a suitcase, not likely.
You're not "denied" entry. In my experience they give you the option to turn back.
How is being the "option to turn back" remotely legal for a citizen?
If you insist you are legally allowed to enter the country and still refuse a search, then they will detain you and your devices until you comply.
Different courts disagree whether data on devices like phones can be seized. Physical objects can be seized as long as there are noted statutes. For example, fresh fruit and meat are not allowed. Illicit drugs are not allowed, etc. First liter of alcohol is tax free; additional alcohol must be taxed. etc.
Your car is literally full of single points of failure,
The screen is a single point of failure for multiple functions. As I pointed out in the rest of paragraph, losing the radio should not affect my ability to adjust the A/C. In the past different controls affect those different functions.
The border agents had the authority to examine the information on his phone without a warrant.
Not entirely true. Different courts have disagreed on this point. There is no definitive case when it is a yes or no.
Things are different when you cross a border. Due process rights are reduced significantly. Agents don't need probable cause or a search warrant. They can just search.
They can physically search a person and their belongs for physical objects like drugs. Searching devices for data is less clear.
And there doesn't need to be a predicate crime to be charged, or even convicted, of obstruction.
In this case the government is claiming the search was both a random stop and not a random stop at the same time. They have to pick one or the other. Either he was being investigated which then requires a warrant or he was not being investigated however Customs was asked to search him.
Martha Stewart spent time in jail for obstruction regarding an investigation of alleged insider trading, even though she was cleared of the charges of insider trading.
How is that relevant to this case? Martha Stewart was charged with 9 counts including insider trading but the jury failed to convict on 5 of those charges. In this case, Trunick is not charged with destruction of property but obstruction.
Customs agents do not need probable cause or a warrant to initiate a routine seizure and basic search of your electronic devices at a U.S. port of entry.
Not necessarily true. Different courts have split on whether agents can search a phone. Physical searches are allowed; seizure of specific items like agricultural products, illegal drugs, weapons are allowed. Seizure of data is less clear.
Almost any seizure while under the border search exception is basically considered justified.
Not true. Seizure of specific items are justified. Fresh fruit/meat for example can be seized. A suitcase can be searched for drugs. Agents can't seize a suitcase that has no illicit substances just because they want. If an agent likes my [Sportsball team jersey of favorite player], they can't just seize it.
So if you delete your phone, burn your wallet, tear up your love letter to your EX, flush your drugs, etc. The border agents can view that as "Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure"
The problem as noted by the lawyer in the video is the problem is the person must be given notice that property is to be preserved. For example, my company shreds old financial records digital and physical routinely because they only have so much storage room. The government can't charge the company with destruction of property if they never gave notice to preserve those records.
Don't like it? Write your legislature to reverse the long-held ruling.
Which long held ruling do you refer?
When you use the duress password, it doesn't overwrite the data on the flash memory, instead that key is wiped. The secure memory has an integrated processor that generates a new key.
Here is where there may or may not be a technical loophole. Technically the data still exists on his device; it is just inaccessible.
"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud
