Lara21

Sometimes it is difficult to tell when someone isn't serious with a comment about hot women and a rule for them to get nude in the screening area. Particularly when the little cartoon smiley face is missing that lets everyone know they aren't being serious.

rjw242

Signs are inanimate, so it's up to the "authorized individuals" to enforce the directives on the signs. Presumably if the enforcement of something written on a sign were unlawful, such enforcement would constitute "unlawful directions" and would be excluded under the cited law.

BigFlyer

I've never seen the signs at SFO and have used my phone in the immigration and customs area many times without incident.

GUWonder

However does DHS and its apologists expect the blind to comply with "posted signs"? It truly is a ridiculous "standard".

"Unlawful directions" can mean a lot of things or nothing at all. The government has a history of violating the rights of individual where such directions becomes "unlawful", if at all, after the violation has already occurred.

xSTRIKEx6864

No cell phones... fine, I'll just use my BlackBerry.

RichardKenner

Exactly. Moreover, the words "lawful" and "regulatory" in that regulation clearly imply that any covered signs must have a legal basis (yes, you can read the regulation in a different way, but that other reading would be unconstitutional and if there are two ways to read something, one constitutional and one not, the correct reading is the constitutional one).

NotaCriminal

I started my reply, and walked away for a few minutes, and then finished the thought and posted it. Thus, I didn't see the infamous facepalm. Regardless, I would have still posted the same thought in response to Lara21.

It has been a long time since I've taken administrative law, but I thought things went like this: Congress creates some law (codified in the USC) and generally it comes with a charge to the agency to set the ground rules (codified in the CFR), which generally comes with yet another general charge to the leaders of the agency to develop policies and guidelines. Said policies and guidelines are then implemented via the handbooks, guidelines, bulletins, executive orders, directives, and administrative decisions. If I have this wrong, perhaps an attorney can jump in, as I'm merely a paralegal.

Given all that, if I'm even remotely correct in my recollection of the administrative process, they have legitimate authority to do so, but we, the people, could feasibly challenge a particular process or guideline, in this case, the use of a phone or other electronic device.

In any case, there are a few of the previously mentioned materials are available on the CBP website, and I'll look through some more to see if the cell phone issue is discussed in this collection of information.

InkUnderNails

FWIW, I think I have this figured out.

It is not a law or a regulation. It is part of what has been adopted administratively under the authority of the control of the area for which the agency has been assigned.

They can ask or request that I not use the phone but there is o legal requirement except that I am required to follow the legal instructions of the agency employees while under their authority. If not, I can be cited for a misdemeanor violation of not following a lawful request or disrupting the process or something.

So, it is not illegal to under any authority or regulation to use the cell phone, but by not complying may be illegal if I am asked by an agent to comply.

Correct?

Ellie M

You have this correct. If a policy or guideline is not made through rule-making (i.e. it's just in a handbook) it does not have the force of law. I haven't looked through the CFR, but assuming other posters are correct and there isn't anything prohibiting cell phone use, it is likely that the cell phone ban came from one of those policies and guidelines, and then DHS placed their policy on an "official sign."

RichardKenner

I don't believe it can be done that way. Every rule that "must be complied with" must be published in the Federal Register at some point. The rule can be something where the details can be modified from time to time (e.g., FDA recalls or the TSA prohibited item list), but you can't legally create new prohibitions without proper notice.

ralfp

That sounds like security through obscurity; keeping the border "secure" by trying to conceal weaknesses. If a certain lane/employee is acting in such a way as to make it easier to smuggle something/someone into the US, then the appropriate action is not to make it illegal to reveal that weakness, but to correct it.

The coordination excuse is like making it illegal to release crime statistics (e.g. percentage of burglaries that go unsolved), as those can be used by criminals to target areas with incompetent police forces.

If there is "sensitive or secure information about inspection procedures", then passengers should not be allowed to see that information at all. Relying on a impossible-to-enforce ban to protect information like the layout of a facility is another case of security through obscurity.

Security through obscurity is occasionally useful, but not to protect "secrets" visible to thousands of people per day. If a given CBP checkpoint processed a few people per day, then it might be defensible to rely on security through obscurity to protect a weakness unique to that checkpoint.

Why should government employees have their identities and "privacy" protected?

If that were the real reason, then shouldn't police be allowed keep their identity secret; shouldn't we have secret police? Of course there are limited exceptions, e.g. undercover officers (CBP agents are not exactly "undercover").

If this is a real issue, then perhaps CBP needs to make an effort to get rid of the dishonest CBP personnel.

Then why prevent passengers from using the devices?

Sopwith

As I originally suspected, after looking through 91 posts there is no obvious, definitive answer. The point is that just because some minion pins a sign to the wall it doesn't necessarily give it the force of law or any other significant authority.

I'm afraid I'm one who rebels at authority that is applied frivolously, without some obvious and rational purpose. All I ask is a little common sense and respect.

And I still want to know why it takes four different people to check my boarding pass in the length of a first down.

Lara21

Well the obvious answer is that customs can do alot of things until a lawsuit is filed against them and won by the plaintiff that then makes them change things somewhat.

moeve

sorry wrong thread

kln

in April 2010 whilst going thru Sydney immigration on the way out, i had a couple of phone calls. all very important and to do with the teenagers education. getting yelled out to get off the phone.............mind you the queue took 30 mins to get thru at that time. just kept nodding yes, yes, i'll be finished in a minute. don't know what all the fuss was about really. to be standing in a queue, and not allowed to talk on the phone when there was nothing else to do anyway was unbelievable...........immigration"get over it"