This is what I intended to ask. I thought exact the same and thank you for your confirmation. ^
I was not planning to bully Americans as that seems to come across to some. I just wanted to know if I am able to deny answering/doing stupidity without being punished BY LAW. Powertripping agents aside.

First, be very clear on the differences between Customs and Border Patrol and TSA. They do very different jobs and have very different levels of authority.

Of course you can refuse to answer the questions of either. However such refusal will have consequences. You can review the types of questions the CBP might ask at https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...try-to-the-u.s. Choosing not to answer them would likely get you put on the next plane out.

I'll quote just the final paragraph of that page, as it is something you might wish to consider carefully:

From the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Council:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/jus...gents-overview
The above statement matches what I've always heard/read about the powers of the Border Patrol. What is your source for saying they need probable cause?

I am "effectively saying" nothing of the sort. This guy wants to pick a fight with TSA, not stand up to being railroaded in a Chinese court. You must be either an engineer, a computer programmer, or extremely young, given that everything is either black or white to you.

Speaking of China, my first visit there I received a fine (a couple of dollars) for putting out my cigarette on the ground outside the Shenzhen train station. Enforcement was, obviously, selective.

What would you do?

a. Argue with official because it's unfair.
b. Demand to see the statute under which you were required to pay the fine.
c. Apologize, pay the fine, and remind yourself that both legal and cultural rules may be different in the country you are visiting.

Three guesses what I did.

And you think people and nation states have a moral duty to intervene with respect to TSA asking you to pronounce your name? Really?

Where do you find this "right"?

To argue that you can impose your moral views on another country when you are visiting is both bizarre and rude. It's like the tipping threads in which foreign visitors to the U.S. say, "I don't believe in tipping, so I don't tip in America." What is so mystifying about, "proper conduct as a guest"?

And IMO, the only "protest" a foreign visitor who objects to the practice is to stay home and let the US state department know why they don't want to visit.

I don't like compulsory x-ray full-body scanning in the UK. I'm not going to go and "stand on my rights" (which I don't understand in the UK and, I guarantee, the OP doesn't understand in the US). I simply won't fly into those airports that use it.

You should have read the link, which was satire.

Your "example" is completely off-point, extreme and most certainly does not use, "the same logical structure." Please show me the court decision holding the name game unconstitutional. Please explain how the name game violates any constitutionally-secured right. Please explain which Amendment of the Bill of Rights is violated by the name game.

This should be interesting.

The intent of the OP is not only quite clear, but he has stated it expressly several times.

And I told him. And I also gave my opinion about foreign visitors who come here to test the law.

Please explain what right is violated by the name game. A foreign visitor who, for example, is pulled stopped on the street by a LEO who heard a "foreign accent," is arrested without probable cause, brought to the station and strip-searched, most certainly SHOULD protest this clear and present violation of rights secured to all by the 4th Amendment. The name game is stupid. It is not presumptively unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

They can search anything that is open or accessible - bags, documents, unprotected devices. They cannot demand passwords or access to secure devices absent probable/articuable cause.

Ink's brief interjection into a very interesting discussion:

I find that the name game is a silly practice, but as implemented it is a relatively trivial matter. They have my name written on the BP. They have my destination airport. It is a trivial matter to state both as I am neither disclosing confidential information or providing information not already in the possession of the TDC. Now, when the questioning moves to where I am staying, the work I will be doing and other matters not related to the verification of my travel documents, then the game is over, and I don't play.

Pot, meet kettle.


Engaged in absolutist discussion and misrepresented what they'd done or said while trying to be all macho on the internet?


Who was it saying that things must be B&W? Personally, I think the world is shades of grey, but then, I'm not the one arguing an absolutist position.


It's on the shelf next to "right thinking people" and "rights only exist because of birthplace". My apologies that you didn't get the oblique reference to the difference between moral rights and legal rights.




You know full well you're being disingenous. The right is expressed via several cases over many years. People, in the US, have a right to privacy. It's not absolute at a border with CBP, but the TSA has no authority in this respect, at a border or elsewhere. They want your name they can learn to read the boarding pass & ID they're holding.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...-right-privacy



I disagree. But hey, we're clearly not going to agree.

Enjoy responding and winning the internet.

I agree on the trivial part, but I have moved to the view over the years that it is simply part of the problem and should therefore be resisted. As in, it's part of the incrementalism that TSA knowingly engages in, so allowing that part is letting them condition the sheeple to what comes after. It is, after all, equally trivial to protest.

Is that what you think? Show me a case that even addresses the name game. Just one will do.

Show me a case that holds that the name game violates the 4th Amendment. Just one will do.

In what respect? I asked you, specifically, to explain HOW the name game violates the Constitution.

And, not surprisingly, your link to the ACLU says absolutely nothing about the name game.

You can disagree, but you're simply wrong. I asked you for facts. You provided none. If you want to compare the basis for opinion, I'm happy to: I'm a licensed attorney who has practiced for 21 years. How 'bout you?

I guess you're not a computer programmer or an engineer. Just very, very young. You don't get to come into a thread, attack my positions backed with absolutely nothing but your own uninformed opinion and, then, when you challenged to support it, run away with the Internet equivalent of "neener neener." This isn't about who lost, who was wrong.

And can you provide a link to support your statement?

In a Google search I was able to find many sources stating that CBP (not TSA) does not require probable cause, but not a single story to the contrary came up in the first three pages. There were also a number of stories of devices being confiscated by the CBP for search by their staff, whom I suspect have technology which could bypass many, if not most, password systems.

Sure!

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/09-10139.pdf

For discussion, including commentary from a US CBP officer, try this thread here on FT.

It's important to note, though, that the court held that reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, is required for a forensic examination, and that the case is binding only on federal courts within the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth has been reversed once before in a border search exception case (Flores-Montano), and the Court could certainly do it again (though the government has not yet filed a cert petition).

Strawman.


Still a strawman.


Again, strawman.


Absolutist position and another strawman. You're on a roll today.


Law degree in NZ. Masters in the UK. Admitted to practice in the High Court in NZ and the UK, although I do neither these days. Have argued cases in both countries and supported cases in the EU. These days I do corporate & immigration law from the US, so, yes, I am somewhat familiar with this particular subject in a professional sense. Can't say I felt a need to "whip it out" like you did, nor am I impressed at the size of yours.

You didn't actually present any facts. You presented an opinion. & then got pissy when someone dared challenge you on it by expressing a contrary opinion. But hey, it's all yours: enjoy your internet rage.


No, this was a discussion about opinions. You expressed yours (& equally failed to provide any "facts" (important to you, apparently, but not me given we're on a random web board expressing opinions, not providing legal advice)) and then got pissy when someone expressed a contrary opinion on certain aspects of what you said. In so far as the "they can do anything they please & you should say thank you" routine goes, if that was a "factual" statement from you then you're quiet simply wrong. CBP can't do as they please (regardless of citizenship) and TSA (for the umpteenth time) has no powers to do anything beyond an administrative search. Now, the reality of the practice - I've mentioned that in another post and as I said there, it's up to the individual how/when they choose to fight their battles. If you want to present facts about those statements I've been repeating that show I'm wrong then we're all still waiting. Time you put up, lawyerboy.

Seriously, you need to relax more. Being that angry can't be good for you.

Shhh. I'm waiting for PTravel, the amazing lawyer, to pick up on that. I've only said it half a dozen times & he's missed it every time. For someone saying they're a US lawyer that's pretty poor.

I suggest that you go back and re-read that court dicision. It does not say what you have posted.

First, currently the decision only affects the 9th Circuit it does not apply nation-wide.

Second, it is a decision that affects Forensic examination of devices. That type of exam happens after the device has been seized and generally happens away from the POE days later. It does not mean that a search that does not involve a Forensic examination cannot be performed by the officer at the POE. That type of search still does not require a warrant.

FB