Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

ACLU files suit on behalf of Apple employee for not giving access to phone/laptop

ACLU files suit on behalf of Apple employee for not giving access to phone/laptop

Reply

Old Apr 3, 19, 2:16 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K, AA, DL, LH, VX, HA
Posts: 5,373
ACLU files suit on behalf of Apple employee for not giving access to phone/laptop

Interesting story here.
Apple Employee with phone and laptop refused to provide access to devices without consulting company and lawyer
US citizen
CBP refused entry initially and ultimately took away Global Entry privileges for his failure to comply with requests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...=.5c84947b662a
drewguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 19, 2:27 pm
  #2  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,935
It was a complaint, not a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by The Washington Post
Galís account has now sparked a civil rights complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California.
Ari is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 19, 2:28 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,609
Another nonsuit.

Nothing to see here.
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 19, 2:38 pm
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K, AA, DL, LH, VX, HA
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
It was a complaint, not a lawsuit.
Apologies - as a lawyer, I read "complaint" as the initiation of a lawsuit. But you are correct - it is a letter of complaint to DHS and CBP not a legal complaint.
drewguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 19, 9:05 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: one big Port of Entry...
Programs: CBP
Posts: 73
Man, we get so many of those....

The Officer writes their recollection of the event, and that's that. Nothing ever happens.

"You're not doing your job if you're not getting complaints."

Been hearing that since FLETC.
maninblack is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 19, 10:50 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,055
What will be interesting is that this occurred at SFO where the 9th Circuit ruling applies (but not nationwide).
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 19, 12:51 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 9,499
Another article which isn't beyond a paywall.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/apple-empl...ry?id=62177572

So he refused to unlock his devices and after they demanded he unlock, they eventually let him go and returned his devices.

I thought you really had no choice but to unlock?

Speculation about whether he was targeted. He says he's a boring white middle-aged male software executive, returning from Sweden. But he's recently naturalized (3 years) and he apparently expressed criticisms of the CBP policies of the administration?

So because he made enough noise about lawyers and such, they backed down?
wco81 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 19, 2:11 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post
What will be interesting is that this occurred at SFO where the 9th Circuit ruling applies (but not nationwide).
So?

Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
I thought you really had no choice but to unlock?
Actually, you do have a choice not to unlock.

But again - CBP has the authority to seize the device in question for further search (i.e. you don't unlock it, I unlock it for you).

Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Speculation about whether he was targeted.
He was definitely targeted somehow. The BP showed SSSS did mean something.

Unsure if the SSSS has anything nexus with the mess with CBP.
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 19, 8:44 pm
  #9  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,935
He was targeted:

Originally Posted by ACLU Complaint
After immigration agents checked his passport on the jetbridge as he exited the airplane, Dr. Gal proceeded to the Global Entry kiosk in the customs and border area. There, Dr. Gal received a receipt from the kiosk marked with two designations: “TTRT” and “X". (The “TTRT” mark on Dr. Gal’s Global Entry kiosk receipt may refer to the so-called “Tactical Terrorism Response Teams” deployed at United States Points of Entry and consisting of CBP Officers ostensibly trained in “counterterrorism response.” See https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/03/...-force-denying. Neither the immigration agents nor the CBP officers ever offered any justification—because none exists—for why Dr. Gal’s receipt was marked with a “TTRT” designation.)
SSSS had nothing to do with it.
Ari is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 19, 11:39 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: bay area, ca
Programs: UA plat, spg plat, aa plat, marriott plat
Posts: 3,104
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
Another nonsuit.

Nothing to see here.
Yes something to see - the fact that we apparently have NO rights to privacy
drewguy likes this.
estnet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 19, 1:22 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.8MM, Marriott PLT, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by estnet View Post
Yes something to see - the fact that we apparently have NO rights to privacy
The U.S. Supreme Court is very clear on this issue - there is no privacy or even illegal search and seizure for borders.

The only issue remaining, which is relevant to this is electronics.
garykung is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:33 am
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K, AA, DL, LH, VX, HA
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
The U.S. Supreme Court is very clear on this issue - there is no privacy or even illegal search and seizure for borders.

The only issue remaining, which is relevant to this is electronics.
Well, in a "policy debate" forum it seems reasonable to debate whether the Supreme Court has the policy correct. Certainly legislation could expand the (non-existent) right to privacy in these circumstances.
drewguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:36 am
  #13  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 79,252
I could see an argument that CBP can physically inspect the phone but not view its electronic contents and especially not stuff stored in the cloud.
Spiff likes this.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 10:36 am
  #14  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K, AA, DL, LH, VX, HA
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
He was targeted:



SSSS had nothing to do with it.
The markers that generate a non-random SSSS could also generate additional screening at the back end, although of course SSSS is just about a search at the departure airport.

Originally Posted by MSPeconomist View Post
I could see an argument that CBP can physically inspect the phone but not view its electronic contents and especially not stuff stored in the cloud.
I think CBP is much less interested in the physical form of the phone once you're off the plane than it is the contents/cloud materials. From a counterterrorism perspective, a phone containing instructions/information about 'what to do next" would be fairly appealing.

Last edited by TWA884; Apr 9, 19 at 11:33 am Reason: Merge consecutive posts by the same member; please use the multi-quote function. Thank you.
drewguy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 19, 11:44 am
  #15  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 11,055
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
He was targeted:
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Dr. Gal suspects that it was retaliatory.
Feds revoke Global Entry, PreCheck privileges of frequent flier

Gal said in an interview that he couldn't understand why he was singled out by CBP, calling himself "a boring, middle-aged white male software executive." But he added: "In the past two years I've been very outspoken on the Trump administration's policies on social media, particularly with respect to Customs and Border Protection and immigration."

Gal repeated his suspicions in a post he wrote for Medium.com on April 2: "My past work on encryption and online privacy is well documented, and so is my disapproval of the Trump administration and my history of significant campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. I wonder whether these CBP programs led to me being targeted." He added that after his experience, "I travel in fear. I've reduced my international travel and my heart pounds every time I go through U.S. Customs."
TWA884 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread