The microblog: 2014.01.03 20:34:51

2014.01.03 20:34:51 (419190137294045184) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Kyle Hamilton (@wolfoftheair)" (419165781293690880):

... The holding was, basically, "You can't ask me to decide constitutionality of _possible_ future laptop searches." @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" #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?