Connect with us

Technology

US border agents must get warrant before searching cellphones, federal court rules

Published

on

International travelers wait to have their passports checked at O

A federal district court in New York has ruled that U.S. border agents must obtain a warrant before searching the electronic devices of Americans and travelers crossing the U.S. border.

The July 24 ruling is the most recent court opinion difficult the U.S. government’s long-standing legal argument that federal border agents should have the ability to access travelers’ devices at ports of entry, comparable to airports, seaports and land borders, with out a court order.

Civil rights groups that defended the ruling praised the decision.

Advertisement

“The ruling makes clear that border patrol agents need a warrant before they can access what the Supreme Court has called ‘the window into a person’s life,’” said Scott Wilkens, senior counsel on the Knight First Amendment Institute, considered one of the groups that brought the case. in a press release from Friday.

The district court ruling applies to the Eastern District of New York, which incorporates New York-area airports comparable to John F. Kennedy International Airport, considered one of the most important transportation hubs within the United States.

A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency chargeable for border security, didn’t reply to a request for comment outside business hours.

The court’s ruling concerns a criminal case involving Kurbanali Sultanov, a U.S. citizen whose phone was seized by border agents at JFK Airport in 2022 and asked for a password, which Sultanov did when officers told him he had no alternative. Sultanov later moved to suppress evidence — allegedly child sexual abuse footage — taken from his phone, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Advertisement

The U.S. border is a legally opaque space where foreign travelers have almost no right to privacy, and Americans may also face intrusive searches. The U.S. government has unique powers and authority on the border, comparable to conducting warrantless searches of devices that law enforcement normally cannot use against someone who has entered the U.S. without first convincing a judge of sufficient suspicion to justify a search.

Critics have argued for years that such searches are unconstitutional and violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizure of an individual’s electronic devices.

In that ruling, the judge relied partly on a friend-of-the-court temporary filed on behalf of the defendants, arguing that unreasonable border searches also violate the First Amendment because they create an “unreasonably high” risk of a chilling effect on press activity and journalists’ border crossings.

The judge within the case cited a friend-of-the-court temporary filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, adding that the court “also shares (the groups’) concerns about the impact of warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border on other First Amendment freedoms — freedom of speech, religion, and association.”

Advertisement

The judge said that if the court accepted the federal government’s argument that border checks of devices don’t require any suspicion, “political opposition targets (or their colleagues, friends or families) would need to pass through an international airport only once for the government to gain unfettered access to the most ‘intimate window into a person’s life.’” The latter cited an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling on cellphone privacy.

Although the court found that the warrantless search of Sultanov’s phone was unconstitutional, it also found that the federal government acted in good faith on the time of the search and denied Sultanov’s motion to suppress evidence from his phone.

It isn’t yet known whether federal prosecutors will appeal the choice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which incorporates New York.

According to CBP’s own dataThe Federal Border Agency carried out greater than 41,700 device checks on foreign travellers in 2023.

Advertisement

Lawmakers have long tried to plug a loophole in border search laws by creating laws that may require U.S. law enforcement officers to acquire a warrant to go looking devices on the border. The bipartisan laws ultimately failed, but legislators haven’t given up on ending this practice entirely.

Given that multiple federal courts have ruled on border searches lately, the query of their legality will likely find yourself before the Supreme Court if lawmakers don’t act more quickly.

Read more on TechCrunch:

Advertisement
This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com

Technology

As Musk manages his growing family: WSJ

Published

on

By

Elon Musk says his duty is to “make new people.” Now Investigation of WSJ He suggests that he could start greater than 14 known children, and the sources claim that the actual number will be much higher. The report also describes how Musk keeps these details within the package.

In the middle of all this, based on the report, there may be a longtime Fixer Jared Birchall, which runs the Muska’s family office, but additionally supports the logistics of the developing Muska family, including by developing Hush contracts and serving as a board for moms of some children.

For example, Musk reportedly asked the conservative influence of Ashley St. Clair for signing a restrictive agreement after she gave birth to their son last autumn. Agreement: $ 15 million plus an extra $ 100,000 per 30 days, so long as the kid is 21 in exchange for her silence. She refused; He says that the contract worsens with every treason perceived. (She told the journal that the Muska team sent her only $ 20,000 after they bowed to Musk to comment on his article).

Advertisement

As for Birchall, which can also be CEO Press-IMPLANTU-IMPLANTU VENTURE NEURALK IA partner In AI Venture XAI in Musk, Muska’s private life management can simply be the third full -time job. According to the journal, in a single two -hour conversation with St. Clair, Birchall told her that the transition “legal path” with musk “always, always leads to a worse result for this woman than otherwise.”

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading

Technology

Lime scooter and Ebike batteries will be recycled by Redwood Materials

Published

on

By

The joint company Micromobility Lime has reached an agreement on sending batteries utilized in scooters and electronic bikes to Sewoi materials that extract and recycle critical minerals, comparable to lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper.

The agreement announced on Monday makes Redwood Materials the only real battery recycling partner for common scooters and e-bike bikes situated in cities within the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. The contract doesn’t cover every region where lime worksAn inventory covering cities throughout Europe, Asia and Australia.

In Lime up to now he had other recycling partnerships, especially with Sprout through his suppliers. However, for the primary time, the joint company Micromobility had direct relations with battery recycling in North America, which might directly process the fabric for recovery and returns it to the availability chain.

Advertisement

Redwood Materials, The Carson City, Startup from Nevada founded by the previous CFO Tesla JB Straubel, will get better battery materials when they can’t be used. After recovering and recycling, the materials will be re -introduced within the battery production process. This production system of a closed loop-which can reduce the demand for extraction and refining of minerals-is on the Redwood Materials business center.

The effort can also be consistent with its own goals of limestone sustainable development. Lime is geared toward decarbonization of operations by 2030. The company has made progress in reducing the range 1, 2 and 3 of emissions by 59.5% in five years of basic years 2019. Wapno plans to report the outcomes of carbon dioxide emissions 2024 in May.

“This cooperation means significant progress in the establishment of a more round supply chain, helping our batteries not only to recycled responsibly after reaching the end of their lives, but that their materials are returned to the battery supply chain,” said Andrew Savage, vice chairman for balanced development in Lime.

Lime also has partnerships from Gomi in Great Britain and Voltr in France and other European countries to gather these live battery cells for “Second Life” applications, including, amongst others, in the sphere of consumer electronics, comparable to portable speakers and battery packages.

Advertisement

Redwood Materials has contracts with other micromobility corporations, including Lyft, RAD Power Bikes and bicycle batteries and scooters specialized in recycling. Redwood, which collected over $ 2 billion in private funds, announced at first of this month, opened the research and development center in San Francisco.

(Tagstranslat) ebikes

This article was originally published on : techcrunch.com
Continue Reading

Technology

The Legal Defense Fund withdraws from the META civil law advisory group over Dei Rolback

Published

on

By

Legal Defense Fund,, Meta, dei,


On April 11, the Legal Defense Fund announced that he was leaving the external advisory council for civil rights regarding the fear that the changes in technology company introduced diversity, own capital, inclusion and availability in January.

According to those changes that some perceived as the capitulation of meta against the upcoming Trump administration, contributed to their decision To leave the advisory council of the technology company.

In January, LDF, along with several other organizations of civil rights, which were a part of the board, sent a letter to Marek Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, outlining their fears As for a way changes would negatively affect users.

Advertisement

“We are shocked and disappointed that the finish has not consulted with this group or its members, considering these significant changes in its content policy. Non -compliance with even its own advisory group of experts on external civil rights shows a cynical disregard for its diverse users base and undermines the commitment of the meta in the field of freedom of speech with which he claims to” return “.

They closed the letter, hoping that the finish would recommend the ideals of freedom of speech: “If the finish really wants to recommend freedom of speech, he must commit to freedom of speech for all his services. As an advisory group from external civil rights, we offer our advice and knowledge in creating a better path.”

These fears increased only in the next months, culminating in one other list, which from the LDF director, Todd A. Cox, who indicated that the organization withdraws its membership from the META civil law advisory council.

“I am deeply disturbed and disappointed with the announcement of Medical on January 7, 2025, with irresponsible changes in content moderation policies on platforms, which are a serious risk for the health and safety of black communities and risk that they destabilize our republic,” Cox wrote.

Advertisement

He continued: “For almost a decade, the NACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) has invested a lot of time and resources, working with META as part of the informal committee advising the company in matters of civil rights. However, the finish introduced these changes in the policy of the content modification without consulting this group, and many changes directly with the guidelines from the guidelines from LDF and partners. LD can no longer participate in the scope. ” Advisory Committee for Rights “

In a separate but related LDF list, it clearly resembled a finish about the actual obligations of the Citizens’ Rights Act of 1964 and other provisions regarding discrimination in the workplace, versus the false statements of the Trump administration, that diversity, justice and initiative to incorporate discriminates against white Americans.

“While the finish has modified its policy, its obligations arising from federal regulations regarding civil rights remain unchanged. The title of VII of the Act on civic rights of 1964 and other regulations on civil rights prohibit discrimination in the workplace, including disconnecting treatment, principles in the workplace which have unfair disproportionate effects, and the hostile work environment. Also when it comes to inclusion, and access programs.

In the LDF press release, announcing each letters, Cox He called attention Metal insert into growing violence and division in the country’s social climate.

Advertisement

“LDF worked hard and in good faith with meta leadership and its consulting group for civil rights to ensure that the company’s workforce reflects the values ​​and racial warehouses of the United States and to increase the security priorities of many different communities that use meta platforms,” ​​said Cox. “Now we cannot support a company in good conscience that consciously takes steps in order to introduce changes in politics that supply further division and violence in the United States. We call the meta to reverse the course with these dangerous changes.”

(Tagstranslate) TODD A. COX (T) Legal Defense Fund (T) META (T) Diversity (T) Equality (T) inclusion

This article was originally published on : www.blackenterprise.com
Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending