246
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
246 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
86633 readers
3179 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No, they're throwing the book at him to make a statement.
Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don't apply.
Similarly, this isn't destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that's a law in the US, but he isn't in the US yet....?
Of course, it's all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.
The argument is that the US government doesn’t have to follow US laws when interacting with US citizens outside of the US?
That’s especially dubious when “outside the US” is referring to a legally flimsy distinction like the international terminal of an airport which is on US soil and controlled exclusively by the US government.
There’s no way this isn’t going to be abused if allowed by courts.