2014.01.03 20:32:03 (419189432441257984) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Kyle Hamilton (@wolfoftheair)" (419165781293690880):
No. The judge actually dismissed the case for "standing" reasons, so the pro-search comments are non-binding dicta... @wolfoftheair @ioerror
2014.01.01 20:04:11 (418457643020079104) from "Jacob Appelbaum (@ioerror)":
Weep for America. "Court Rules No Suspicion Needed for Laptop Searches at Border" https://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/court-rules-no-suspicion-needed-laptop-searches-border #aclu
2014.01.03 16:44:53 (419132262148354048) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jacob Appelbaum (@ioerror)" (418457643020079104):
"No suspicion" is non-binding dicta. The actual ruling is that 1st/4th-amt issues must be raised _after_ a laptop search. "Bivens." @ioerror
2014.01.03 18:58:04 (419165781293690880) from "Kyle Hamilton (@wolfoftheair)":
@hashbreaker @ioerror ...i.e., they can search your laptop, but you still have 1st/4th Amd challenges to mandates for crypto disclosure?