this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
492 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

88234 readers
3246 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net 119 points 4 days ago (4 children)

The Knight First Amendment Institute argued as amicus that searching expressive and associational content on phones demands a First Amendment warrant. The Second Circuit rejected that argument, holding that neither the Fourth nor the First Amendment carves out a special exemption for phones at the border.

Wow. Yeah... We all need shitty travel phones with very little on them now. That's fucking gross.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 69 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The Second Circuit rejected that argument, holding that neither the Fourth nor the First Amendment carves out a special exemption for phones at the border.

The second circuit used the right argument but somehow came to the wrong conclusion. The 4th carves out no special exemption, meaning you need a warrant.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Conservatives are pathological liars by nature. They re-define words to suit their immediate needs. Never trust a conservative. Never.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Task failed successfully?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Second Circuit rejected that argument, holding that neither the Fourth nor the First Amendment carves out a special exemption for phones at the border.

Could it be because the technology was still 250 fucking years away?

That was my question too...

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Or don't travel with a phone at all. Take a digital camera and use that for pictures.

Anything else, just buy a used phone at your destination and load all your accounts on that, then delete and reset your phone and sell it before you leave

[–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You realize these powers extend within 100 miles of any border?

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Doesn't it also include international airports and waterways?

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

I don't know, but if the 100 mile rule applies to international airports and waterways it would probably change that 2/3 of the population to something like 9/10.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago
[–] gagcar@lemmus.org 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Colloidal@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

That's like most of the populated areas

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Take a digital camera and use that for pictures.

They'll search that too! Take an analog camera instead. At least that way you get the film developed for free ;).

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 43 points 3 days ago

If by "developed" you mean "opened and exposed to the light" then yes

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago

use one that requires a dark room.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We all need shitty travel phones with very little on them now.

Or don't travel there.

I unfortunately live in this cesspool of a country