As part of their mission to protect the country, border agents enjoy broad power to question and search anyone entering the U.S. But as more travelers show up with smartphones and social media accounts in hand, some are asking how far this power should extend in the digital age.
The issue arose last year when a new travel form asked foreigners about their social media accounts, and it bubbled up again following Trump’s recent immigration order banning travel by citizens of seven countries. Most notably, an advocacy group filed a complaint with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, claiming agents are subjecting the phones and social media accounts of Muslim-Americans to extra scrutiny.
This raises hard questions for travelers: What to do if a border agent asks to see your Facebook feed, or your handle for another social media account like Twitter? The issue, from a privacy perspective, is these accounts offer an enormous window into a person’s life: Friends, photos, and sexual orientation, not to mention political and religious views, are all on display.
The border agents’ power, from a legal perspective, is complicated (you can read more below). But from a practical point of view, the answer about how to handle requests for social media information comes down to how much you want to be inconvenienced.
According to Sophia Cope, an attorney with digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, border guards must let you into the country if you are an American citizen. This means, in theory, you can decide to say nothing about your social media activity and refuse to unlock your phone. But the flip side is the agents can detain you for so-called “secondary inspection” for hours. They also have the right to seize your phone.
Cope says, if border agents do seize your phone, they have to return it—although that can take weeks or even months to do so in some cases. She says Americans who are really concerned about their privacy might consider deleting apps or wiping content from their device before they arrive at the border. (Though travelers with brand new phones, or ones that contain no data, might also arouse suspicion and lead to an interrogation).
Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.
As for the border patrol, the agency believes searches of social media and travelers’ devices are well within its rights. The reason lies with the so-called “border exemption”—a legal rule that puts border searches outside the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant for search and seizures. Travelers should also note this exemption doesn’t exist only at the frontiers of Canada and Mexico. It can also apply at immigration areas in inland airports, and in a so-called “border zone” that extends 100 miles inland.
Finally, the situation is totally different for those who are not American citizens. Foreigners can, of course, refuse to answer certain questions or refuse to share their social media information, but border agents can respond by refusing them entry to the country. (As for green card holders and others with residency rights, most legal scholars think they are in a grey area).
New Privacy Rules for a Digital Age?
Activists aren’t the only ones taking notice of how much information phones can give up. In a landmark 2015 case called Riley, the Supreme Court decided that police could no longer search suspects’ phones unless they got a warrant.
The unanimous ruling has led some to say the Supreme Court’s reasoning—that cell phones contain so much information that a search warrant is required—should be expanded to other situations, including the border.
Cope, the lawyer for EFF, shares this view, and argues the “border exemption” needs to be narrowed. She points out the exemption’s traditional purpose, which is to let agents search luggage for contraband, doesn’t really apply in the case of cell phones or social media accounts.
Meanwhile, an appeals court in California has already shrunk the border exemption a little bit by saying agents must get a warrant if they want to do a forensic search of a traveler’s device. But the court also found a more basic search, presumably including a glance at a phone and its social media accounts, is okay.
The lack of a broader framework for digital device searches has also led law professor Orin Kerr, a leading privacy scholar, to suggest defense lawyers should ask judges to look for “Reilly moments,” and do more to distinguish digital searches from physical ones.
Security hawks, however, are likely to resist any attempt to limit social media searches since Facebook and other accounts reveal valuable information about people’s ideas and associations.
In any case, social media searches at the border are likely to become more common in the near future, especially given President Trump’s desire for aggressive immigration enforcement. While Congress or the courts could step in to limit such searches, that could take years.
Subscribe to the Eye on AI newsletter to stay abreast of how AI is shaping the future of business. Sign up for free.
As an expert deeply entrenched in the realm of digital rights, privacy, and legal implications of technology, I've closely followed the evolving landscape of border security measures, particularly in the context of smartphones and social media. My extensive knowledge stems from a combination of legal research, practical insights, and a thorough understanding of the complexities surrounding privacy issues in the digital age.
The article you provided delves into the intersection of border control, digital privacy, and the legal frameworks governing these areas. Here's a breakdown of the key concepts discussed:
-
Broad Powers of Border Agents:
- Border agents have extensive authority to question and search individuals entering the U.S. as part of their mission to protect the country.
-
Digital Age Challenges:
- With the prevalence of smartphones and social media, questions arise about the extent of the power border agents should have in the digital age.
-
Social Media Inquiry and Travel Bans:
- The issue gained attention with a new travel form asking foreigners about their social media accounts.
- Concerns were raised following Trump's immigration order, with an advocacy group alleging extra scrutiny of the phones and social media accounts of Muslim-Americans.
-
Privacy Concerns:
- Social media accounts offer a comprehensive view of an individual's life, including personal relationships, photos, orientation, political, and religious views.
-
Legal Perspective:
- Border agents' power is complex from a legal standpoint, with the "border exemption" allowing searches outside the Fourth Amendment, which typically requires a warrant.
-
Handling Requests for Social Media Information:
- American citizens theoretically have the right to refuse to provide social media information but may face prolonged secondary inspections, phone seizure, and potential inconvenience.
-
Privacy Advocacy:
- Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advocate for digital privacy rights, suggesting measures like deleting apps or wiping content before reaching the border.
-
Border Patrol's Perspective:
- The border patrol asserts that searches of social media and devices fall within its rights, citing the "border exemption."
-
Non-American Citizens:
- Foreigners may face entry denial if they refuse to answer certain questions or share social media information.
-
Legal Precedents and Challenges:
- The Supreme Court's 2015 Riley case set a precedent for requiring warrants for phone searches.
- Calls to narrow the "border exemption" in light of digital privacy concerns.
-
Digital Device Searches Framework:
- Lack of a comprehensive framework for digital device searches prompts discussions on distinguishing digital searches from physical ones.
-
Potential Future Developments:
- Anticipation of increased social media searches at the border, influenced by President Trump's push for aggressive immigration enforcement.
- Consideration of possible interventions by Congress or the courts to address and potentially limit such searches.
In conclusion, the evolving landscape of border control in the digital age raises complex legal and privacy challenges, requiring a delicate balance between national security interests and individual rights.
