The Perceived Intrusiveness of Searching Electronic Devices at the Border: An Empirical Study

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Matthew B. Kugler
{"title":"The Perceived Intrusiveness of Searching Electronic Devices at the Border: An Empirical Study","authors":"Matthew B. Kugler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2402244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents new empirical data that seeks to quantify the privacy interests and expectations of regular people in the context of a border crossing. Courts have previously disagreed about whether travelers understand that their electronic devices are subject to search at the border, and whether such searches are more intrusive than routine examinations of traveler luggage. The data presented here show that, consistent with the view the 9th Circuit recently adopted in its controversial Cotterman decision, ordinary people believe that searches of their electronic devices impinge more on their privacy and dignity interests than do most traditional searches. In fact, survey participants tended to rate electronic searches as being almost as intrusive as strip and body cavity searches. In addition, the overwhelming majority of participants believed that their electronic devices could not be searched at a border crossing unless the customs agent had some level of individualized suspicion, suggesting that current doctrine creates substantial risk of surprise. These data will hopefully serve to shed light on the new issues raised by searches of electronic devices in an era of smartphones, tablets, and cloud computing.","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"20 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"73","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2402244","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 73

Abstract

This paper presents new empirical data that seeks to quantify the privacy interests and expectations of regular people in the context of a border crossing. Courts have previously disagreed about whether travelers understand that their electronic devices are subject to search at the border, and whether such searches are more intrusive than routine examinations of traveler luggage. The data presented here show that, consistent with the view the 9th Circuit recently adopted in its controversial Cotterman decision, ordinary people believe that searches of their electronic devices impinge more on their privacy and dignity interests than do most traditional searches. In fact, survey participants tended to rate electronic searches as being almost as intrusive as strip and body cavity searches. In addition, the overwhelming majority of participants believed that their electronic devices could not be searched at a border crossing unless the customs agent had some level of individualized suspicion, suggesting that current doctrine creates substantial risk of surprise. These data will hopefully serve to shed light on the new issues raised by searches of electronic devices in an era of smartphones, tablets, and cloud computing.
边境搜索电子设备的感知侵入性:一项实证研究
本文提出了新的经验数据,旨在量化跨境背景下普通人的隐私利益和期望。对于旅客是否明白他们的电子设备在边境会受到搜查,以及这种搜查是否比对旅客行李的常规检查更具侵入性,法院此前一直存在分歧。这里提供的数据表明,与第九巡回法院最近在有争议的科特曼案判决中采纳的观点一致,普通人认为,对他们电子设备的搜查比大多数传统搜查更侵犯他们的隐私和尊严利益。事实上,调查参与者倾向于认为电子搜查几乎和脱衣搜查和体腔搜查一样具有侵入性。此外,绝大多数与会者认为,除非海关人员有某种程度的个人怀疑,否则他们的电子设备不能在过境时被搜查,这表明目前的原则造成了很大的意外风险。这些数据有望有助于揭示在智能手机、平板电脑和云计算时代搜索电子设备所带来的新问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信