Former Mozilla CTO (Now working for Apple) illegally detained by CBP after criticizing CBP overreach online

[kuhnertdm]

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-cto-detained-at-us-border-and-denied-a-lawyer/

 

Former Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal has filed a civil rights complaint with the aid of the ACLU, calling for investigation into an incident in November of last year, when he was illegally detained by CBP agents without allowing him access to a lawyer, when returning from a trip to Europe.

 

Gal had left Mozilla in 2015 to create an AI-focused startup called Silk Labs. One week before the incident in question, the startup was bought by Apple, and Gal became an Apple employee. He was carrying Apple property (a work laptop and work phone), that were clearly marked as such, and as containing unreleased software/proprietary information. Gal was under an NDA with Apple to not allow anyone access to the devices, but after being detained without a lawyer, the CBP agents ordered him to unlock the devices and hand them over (this is illegal without a warrant, which they didn't have). They told Gal that their intentions were to look at the itenerary on the device, but after Gal told them he'd happily email that to them to satisfy their demands, they instead told them that he had to give them full access to the devices. They also told him that he had "no right to an attorney", which was not true.

 

US citizens are guaranteed rights at the constitutional level against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against self-incrimination. This includes the following:

• The right to not have your property searched without being presented with either a warrant, or probable cause, which usually takes the form of telling the person what illegal material the searcher knows is in the person's property, and how they know that
• The right to an attorney when being questioned
• The right to not be detained for an extended period of time without being formally charged with a crime

The agents cited 18 U.S.C. § 111, which states that if you "forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with" a federal officer performing official duties, you are breaking federal law. It's true that the law states this, but this law does not trump constitutional rights, so in context, the statement was false and given as an attempt to trick Gal into waiving his rights.

 

Gal had actually been an activist online against things like CBP overreach, and he suspects that this incident was a form of retaliation against his activism in this field, as well as his vocal dislike of the current presidential administration, and his history of donations to democratic candidates for public office.

 

 

[myselfolli]

Well that's all kinds of messed up...

 

I've only ever been to America once and I've (gladly) only had good experiences with the CBP agents, but hearing horror stories from people less lucky than me is kinda common place...

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, kuhnertdm said:

US citizens are guaranteed rights at the constitutional level against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against self-incrimination.

Not at the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

 

 

Also :

"All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer." Unless exempt by diplomatic status, all persons entering the United States, including U.S. citizens, are subject to examination and search by CBP officers.

Source : https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 hour ago, kuhnertdm said:

Gal had actually been an activist online against things like CBP overreach, and he suspects that this incident was a form of retaliation against his activism in this field, as well as his vocal dislike of the current presidential administration, and his history of donations to democratic candidates for public office.

nobody should go through something like this because of their views. nobody. 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

Not at the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

 

 

Also :

 

 

Source : https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority

The right to an attorney during any sort of questioning is an undeniable right even at the border. 

[DrMacintosh]

2 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

Not at the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

 

 

Also :

 

 

Source : https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority

Yes, even at the boarder. A lower court or authority cannot overrule the Constitution. 

 

If someone were to take this case to the to the supreme court, CBP would lose. 

[sof006]

All kinds of fucked up. I hope he fucks them up.

[Master Disaster]

16 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, even at the boarder. A lower court or authority cannot overrule the Constitution. 

 

If someone were to take this case to the to the supreme court, CBP would lose. 

I doubt it, any judge would look at the situation and side with the ruling in the need of national security.

 

Illegally searching your own citizens might be bad but it's not as bad as having people walk through a border unsearched.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it but that's just the way things have gone now.

[Taf the Ghost]

His mistake was taking anything through that could be turned on. If he's been critical of the Border Patrol's over-reach (it's really more employees abusing official capacity than actual invasion of privacy issues), he should have known how to handle his tech going through customs. You've actually got a lot of choices depending on your situation. It just depends where you're going and what type of hurdles you're willing to do. Best choice for most travel is to take a "travel Install" for your laptop and a "travel SIM".  Then, when you get to your destination, switch them out for the versions you need for work. (This requires transporting an encrypted hard drive, either as a partition or a physically separate drive.) 

 

I would normally recommend the physically separate drives because it gives you a lot more options. Not the least of which is to limit the ability for someone to compromise your device on-location. It pushes the "Evil Maids" from security services-level to intelligence-services level, and that's almost always what personal security is really about. (If you piss off the NSA or GCHQ, you have far bigger problems to deal with.) Worst case, you can ship your drive to a friend and retrieve it after your return trip. (Pretty quick international shipping has gotten pretty cheap.)

 

Other thing is: just buy a phone for an International Trip. You have too much important information on your normal phone, so don't expose it to getting lost at a Tourist location.

 

One other big, important thing: NEVER take a device that has your Password Wallet or Bank Accounts through Customs. Of any country. One should always assume you have no functional rights in any foreign country you visit, so keep any important access locked away in your home country. You can always VPN into a secure server (like renting a VPS for real cheap for a month) to do transactions you would need to at home.

 

Some of this is pretty basic stuff when you're dealing with any sort of protected information.

[IntMD]

21 hours ago, myselfolli said:

Well that's all kinds of messed up...

 

I've only ever been to America once and I've (gladly) only had good experiences with the CBP agents, but hearing horror stories from people less lucky than me is kinda common place...

In all the times I've been in and out of the US, I've only had one guy who was an absolute asshat (at LAX), quite literally the 2nd most rude person I've had the displeasure of talking to in the US. I got taken to a lovely little waiting room at McCarran in Vegas last time I was there, but everyone was super chill, while they decided to do some more checks on me (pretty sure someone with a similar name was wanted judging by the two CBP guys typing in to a single computer painfully slowly and discussing the fact I had a middle name and the guy they wanted didn't), and I got to listen to them asking a South American dude about the reasons he was carrying a large amount of cash (something like $30-40k) that he didn't declare, which was amusing. Honolulu, SF, NY, Orlando, Peach Arch & Mexico border crossings, everyone has been fine and the Honolulu guy and one of the Orlando ones was actually really quite funny.

[Taf the Ghost]

@kuhnertdm

 

https://medium.com/@andreasgal/no-one-should-have-to-travel-in-fear-b2bff4c460e5

 

Guy involved has a blog post about it. The story is actually kind of strange. Dr. Gal still really should have had significantly different approaches to his data, but the fact he walked out with all of his devices is the strange part.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

18 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

If someone were to take this case to the to the supreme court, CBP would lose.

Actually they are very likely to win. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Flores-Montano

 

That guy also tried to pull the 4th amendment card when they caught him at the border with 80lbs of marijuana in his gas tank, arguing that the search was illegal because there was no probable cause or ground for reasonable suspicion.  The Supreme Court looked into the case and ruled that those are not required at the border. 

Basically the Supreme Court has already said that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply for CBP searches.

 

The only thing that I find iffy about Andreas Gal's case is the refusal to let him contact a lawyer.  US citizens have the right to request that a lawyer is present for any questioning, non-citizens only have a right to a lawyer once they have been charged with a crime or once the questions go beyond their immigration status.

Gal became a US citizen in 2016, the incident happened near the end of 2017.  So he did indeed have the right to ask for a lawyer.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Captain Chaos said:

Actually they are very likely to win. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Flores-Montano

 

That guy also tried to pull the 4th amendment card when they caught him at the border with 80lbs of marijuana in his gas tank, arguing that the search was illegal because there was no probable cause or ground for reasonable suspicion.  The Supreme Court looked into the case and ruled that those are not required at the border. 

Basically the Supreme Court has already said that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply for CBP searches.

 

The only thing that I find iffy about Andreas Gal's case is the refusal to let him contact a lawyer.  US citizens have the right to request that a lawyer is present for any questioning, non-citizens only have a right to a lawyer once they have been charged with a crime or once the questions go beyond their immigration status.

Gal became a US citizen in 2016, the incident happened near the end of 2017.  So he did indeed have the right to ask for a lawyer.

Yeah that is what they are going after them for. They asked for a lawyer and were denied which is a big issue. It's very silly that they would do something that is clearly illegal under the guise that it would be interfering with an investigation. 

[BuckGup]

On a side note if he was ever in the military he loses the right to an attorney 

[kuhnertdm]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

It's very silly that they would do something that is clearly illegal under the guise that it would be interfering with an investigation. 

At least from news stories I've seen online, this is a common practice. There's not really any consequences for police officers and such when they lie to someone about their rights. However, they do have to respect those rights if the person knows the rights. So, telling the person "you don't have a right to an attorney" is a tactic that they will use in the hopes that the person will believe them, and say "Ok, I'll willingly answer your questions without an attorney present". However, in this case that seems kind of fuzzy, especially considering that the officers clearly intended to compel him to answer their questions non-willingly. Plus, there's the aspect with how he was certainly detained without being charged with a crime, and was not allowed to leave until they let him.

[Chett_Manly]

Where is the statement from Border Patrol on this? Not in the story, not even a "we contacted them and they declined". So its a story on an activist suing alongside an activist organization, written by an activist publication that presented only one side.

 

Why should I believe any of this? Leftwing activists fake encounters all the time now. I require proof.

[Brooksie359]

43 minutes ago, Chett_Manly said:

Where is the statement from Border Patrol on this? Not in the story, not even a "we contacted them and they declined". So its a story on an activist suing alongside an activist organization, written by an activist publication that presented only one side.

 

Why should I believe any of this? Leftwing activists fake encounters all the time now. I require proof.

Why would they sue if it is all made up? Seems like a huge waste of money. I also believe that it would be illegal and be considered perjury. 

[Noctus]

4 hours ago, BuckGup said:

On a side note if he was ever in the military he loses the right to an attorney 

What sort of bullshit rule is that ? I never knew all military were trained paralegals in any and all law

[Ithanul]

47 minutes ago, Noctus said:

What sort of bullshit rule is that ? I never knew all military were trained paralegals in any and all law

Not sure where that user is getting such info.  Military personnel have rights to an attorney.  http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/rights_of_military_mbrs.pdf

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, Noctus said:

What sort of bullshit rule is that ? I never knew all military were trained paralegals in any and all law

Since you are held to a higher standard you answer to I forgot the name but it's like the military's court system

[BigRom]

4 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Since you are held to a higher standard you answer to I forgot the name but it's like the military's court system

Courts-martial? Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)?

[Noctus]

5 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Since you are held to a higher standard you answer to I forgot the name but it's like the military's court system

Pretty sure you're still entitled to a lawyer when being court-martialed lol.

[Syntaxvgm]

I think a lot of people in this thread aren't familiar with how the CBP abuses Americans re-entering the country because they can get away with it. They get away with a LOT and the reduced rights you technically have on paper don't apply in real life. There is little to no recourse, even if they cross their legal limits. 

 

Also

WHAT'S DEFINED AS THE BORDER EXTENDS 100 MILES INLAND, COVERING 2/3 OF AMERICANS IN THIS "BORDER" ZONE. THIS MEANS THEY CAN LEGALLY SEARCH PEOPLE HOURS AWAY FROM THE BORDER WITH NO WARRANT.

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-authority-for-the-border-patrol

 

Quote

The authority for this is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) and copied in 8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 287 (a)(3), which states that Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.

So, yea. That's a thing everyone should know. It's not just at the border, it's most of the population centers, and the entire state of Michigan, which I have to cross before I get into Canada, Yet I am also in the border zone. In north Indiana. A border state, apparently.