Post #4081566
2026-07-24 18:29 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@nakal@mastodon.social 2026-07-24 18:58
@evacide@hachyderm.io I am not a lawyer. Glad that it's obvious. I cannot read the article because "disable your adblocker" which is not possible. In an ideal world a permanent warrant for searches at the border wouldn't be allowed to exist. But this is a tricky situation in which you need to decide quickly, if you prefer months of work to restore device integrity or being detained for some time.
-
@lispi314@udongein.xyz 2026-07-26 01:17
@evacide@hachyderm.io @nakal@mastodon.social How are warrantless border searches reconciliated with their unconstitutionality? edit: Ah, the supreme court decided on some utter idiocy. I see.
-
@lwriemen@social.librem.one 2026-07-27 13:04
@evacide@hachyderm.io @nakal@mastodon.social What if the non-criminal part is stated as a moral preference, i.e., 'If you're a criminal, it's better to have a duress PIN. You are able to destroy evidence that is more incriminating than the erase action itself. If you're not a criminal, it's better to have a duress PIN, because fuck their warrentless searches. Since being criminal (or not) is an invariant here, you should use a duress PIN.'?