A federal district judge has ruled that authorities must obtain a warrant to search an American citizen’s cellphone at the US border, barring exigent circumstances.

It is the first court in the United States to do so, to the delight of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which along with other advocacy groups has been fighting for years to narrow the scope of border searches. Under current law, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search anyone within 100 miles of an American national line, which covers a lot of people.

“EFF is thrilled about this decision, given that we have been advocating for a warrant for border searches of electronic devices in the courts and Congress for nearly a decade,” said Sophia Cope, senior staff attorney, in a statement Tuesday.

Cope expressed hope that the US Second Circuit will adopt the lower New York court’s interpretation if the case – United States vs. Smith (1:22-cr-00352-JSR) – is appealed.

The suck zone

Under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, people in America should be protected from unreasonable search and seizure – specifically, searches conducted by authorities without probable cause. But there’s a distance factor to be added in.

The CBP is afforded exceptional leeway to scrutinize the people and objects coming and going across the US border. The agency maintains [PDF] it can conduct warrantless searches at the border, an area that includes land border crossing points, seaports, and airports. And this border search exception, with some limitations requiring reasonable suspicion for invasive searches, has been supported by US courts.

The border however turns out to cover most of America in terms of population. Since 1953, the US Department of Justice has defined the border to be anywhere within 100 miles of the actual national limits.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, about two-thirds of the people in the US live within 100 miles of a border. So in theory these 200 million border zone dwellers could have their phones seized and searched at any time by CBP agents without a warrant.

The issue came up last year in United States vs. Smith. CBP detained defendant Jatiek Smith upon his return to Newark airport in New Jersey from Jamaica, and forced the US citizen by threat of indefinite detention to surrender his cellphone and password – an act of coercion that in this instance, according to Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The agents reviewed the phone manually then imaged it without a warrant. Several weeks later, the government sought and obtained a search warrant. Smith sought to suppress the evidence gained from that search by claiming his rights were violated.

Judge Rakoff found Smith’s Fourth Amendment argument against the search compelling, in light of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California (2014). In that case, the Supreme Court determined that police must get a warrant to search the cellphone of an arrested suspect. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Copying and searching a traveler’s phone during a border crossing bears little resemblance to traditional physical border searches historically permitted without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘border search exception,'” Judge Rakoff wrote in his opinion and order [PDF].

“Rather, such searches extend the government’s reach far beyond the person and luggage of the border-crosser – as if the fact of a border crossing somehow entitled the government to search that traveler’s home, car, and office. The border search exception does not extend so far.”

Crucially, the judge wrote:

If you’re wondering whether that applies to non-citizens, the ruling added as a footnote: “The court need not here address whether the same result would hold for a non-resident or non-citizen.”

The above was not enough to get Smith completely off the hook. Rakoff accepted that the CBP agents had acted in good faith – the agents believed they were authorized to conduct the search and later obtained a warrant – so he declined to suppress the evidence gathered from Smith’s phone on that basis.

We ought to point out that Smith has been accused of running a brutal gangland extortion ring, hence the Feds’ interest in him and the contents of his gadgets. According to prosecutors, Smith and others took over a Brooklyn-based company that cleans up fire-damaged properties, and then used that business “to extort other participants in the fire mitigation industry and to assert control over the industry using violence and threats of violence.”

Smith is also a convicted sex offender and drug dealer who has been in and out of prison.

Nonetheless, it’s reassuring to know the judiciary is warming to arguments that searching phones is different from searching luggage. ®

Instagram is, once again, trying how its recommendations work in an attempt to dispel “misconceptions” about how the app’s algorithm works and whether or not the company engages in “shadowbanning” of certain creators. In a new blog post from Instagram’s top exec Adam Mosseri, he offers one of the most detailed explanations to date on how the app ranks content in various parts of the app.

“Instagram doesn’t have a singular algorithm that oversees what people do and don’t see on the app,” Mosseri explains. Instead, he says, there are multiple algorithms and ranking systems underpinning different aspects of the app, like Explore, Reels, Stories and search. Each of these uses a variety of signals to determine how content is ranked for each user.

For example, the order of posts in your main feed is determined by your past activity, as well as previous interactions with the person who made each post. Likewise, Stories posts take into account viewing history as well as “closeness,” or “how likely you are to be connected as friends or family.” On the other hand, recommendations in Explore are largely based “posts you’ve liked, saved, shared and commented on in the past,” but are more likely to come from accounts you’ve never interacted with.

One of the more interesting sections of Mosseri’s blog post is titled “addressing shadowbanning.” Mosseri notes that there isn’t a universal definition for the word, but acknowledges that many creators “use the term to imply that a user’s account or content is limited or hidden without a clear explanation or justification.” And he says that the company is working to increase transparency around when creators’ content or accounts are blocked from the app’s recommendations.

Specifically, he calls out the app’s feature, which can alert users if one of their posts or their account is considered “ineligible” for recommendations. The feature also offers an appeals process. While it’s not the first time Instagram has addressed the issue, which has been the subject of much speculation and conspiracy theories over the years, there has been a notable shift in the way the company is talking about “shadowbanning.”

In a from two years ago, Mosseri wrote that “the truth is most of your followers won’t see what you share, because most look at less than half of their Feed.” Now, he says Instagram is working on increasing transparency in cases when a creator’s content isn’t widely distributed due to a policy violation. “If anything makes your content less visible, you should know about it and be able to appeal,” he wrote.

He added that Instagram is testing “new notifications to help creators understand when the reach of their reel may be limited due to a watermark” (the company has tried users from posting recycled TikToks to Reels for years).

While some creators may still find these explanations unsatisfying — and there are more than a few who fall into that camp, judging by on Mosseri’s own Instagram post — the new details underscore just how central algorithmic recommendations are becoming to Instagram. While the app re-introduced an optional , Mark Zuckerberg has said his goal is to transform Instagram and Facebook into a more focused on recommendations than posts from friends.

Instagram is, once again, trying how its recommendations work in an attempt to dispel “misconceptions” about how the app’s algorithm works and whether or not the company engages in “shadowbanning” of certain creators. In a new blog post from Instagram’s top exec Adam Mosseri, he offers one of the most detailed explanations to date on how the app ranks content in various parts of the app.

“Instagram doesn’t have a singular algorithm that oversees what people do and don’t see on the app,” Mosseri explains. Instead, he says, there are multiple algorithms and ranking systems underpinning different aspects of the app, like Explore, Reels, Stories and search. Each of these uses a variety of signals to determine how content is ranked for each user.

For example, the order of posts in your main feed is determined by your past activity, as well as previous interactions with the person who made each post. Likewise, Stories posts take into account viewing history as well as “closeness,” or “how likely you are to be connected as friends or family.” On the other hand, recommendations in Explore are largely based “posts you’ve liked, saved, shared and commented on in the past,” but are more likely to come from accounts you’ve never interacted with.

One of the more interesting sections of Mosseri’s blog post is titled “addressing shadowbanning.” Mosseri notes that there isn’t a universal definition for the word, but acknowledges that many creators “use the term to imply that a user’s account or content is limited or hidden without a clear explanation or justification.” And he says that the company is working to increase transparency around when creators’ content or accounts are blocked from the app’s recommendations.

Specifically, he calls out the app’s feature, which can alert users if one of their posts or their account is considered “ineligible” for recommendations. The feature also offers an appeals process. While it’s not the first time Instagram has addressed the issue, which has been the subject of much speculation and conspiracy theories over the years, there has been a notable shift in the way the company is talking about “shadowbanning.”

In a from two years ago, Mosseri wrote that “the truth is most of your followers won’t see what you share, because most look at less than half of their Feed.” Now, he says Instagram is working on increasing transparency in cases when a creator’s content isn’t widely distributed due to a policy violation. “If anything makes your content less visible, you should know about it and be able to appeal,” he wrote.

He added that Instagram is testing “new notifications to help creators understand when the reach of their reel may be limited due to a watermark” (the company has tried users from posting recycled TikToks to Reels for years).

While some creators may still find these explanations unsatisfying — and there are more than a few who fall into that camp, judging by on Mosseri’s own Instagram post — the new details underscore just how central algorithmic recommendations are becoming to Instagram. While the app re-introduced an optional , Mark Zuckerberg has said his goal is to transform Instagram and Facebook into a more focused on recommendations than posts from friends.

Cybersecurity firm Eclypsium has discovered a backdoor in Gigabyte’s firmware that puts 271 different motherboards at risk. These include models with Intel and AMD chipsets from the last several years, all the way up to today’s Z790 and X670 SKUs. The vulnerability resides in a small updater program that Gigabyte employs to ensure that the motherboard’s firmware is always current. Apparently, it’s doing so via an unsecured implementation.

Have you ever noticed that after a clean Windows installation, a program pops up offering to download the latest driver or firmware for you? Unfortunately, that little piece of code could provide a backdoor for criminals.

No one knows what the future of tech shows holds. The pricey, flashy E3 show, for example, was declining for years before its last in-person show in 2019. Other trade shows are enduring notable decline in exhibitor numbers, in-show announcements, and attendee numbers.

This May, however, remained a time for tech trade shows. Computex started Tuesday, and The Society for Information Display (SID) held Display Week 2023 in Los Angeles last week.

As a tech reporter, the fun part of trade shows isn’t racking up steps or spotting slivers of time to eat and sleep. It’s checking out interesting products, features, and concepts that customers will soon see. It feels somewhat odd to say in this post-pandemic world, but May was actually an interesting time for trade show displays.

Here are six debuts that piqued my interest with what they do now and what they could mean for the future.

20 displays, one modular macropad

Cooler Master is showing off the momma of macropads at Computex. The MasterHUB is a modular device it says it’ll start selling in “late November” with nine modules available. Cooler Master initially targeted video editors, photo editors, and streamers, but macropads have earned a spot on the desks of various types of power users, and the extensive variety the modules offer highlights macropads’ untapped potential.

‘But I thought this was an article about displays,’ you say? Well, there are 20 displays across all of the MasterHUB’s modules. Among them is an 8-inch,1280×800 touchscreen, as reported by sites like Tom’s Hardware. There are also two modules with smaller displays, plus another one with an ultrawide one. A fifth module has a 1.3-inch dial with its own screen. Cooler Master believes this IPS display can be used to show off your images (pictures from attendees show the dial displaying a pet).

For excessive control, there’s a module that adds 15 custom keys to your setup, and each key is illuminated with an IPS screen.

Cooler Master has big dreams for the macropad, but I’ve seen the company fall short of peripheral product releases before. When I reached out about future features, a spokesperson said the company doesn’t have more information yet.

“Coupled with the API integration for wide software support and an SDK for user customization, the MasterHUB and MasterControl [Cooler Master software] become powerful tools for any tech enthusiast. The journey begins with the system environment in 2023, expanding to room environment support in 2024, and broadening to entire smart home automation by 2025,” Cooler Master’s announcement today said.

There are other non-screen modules, like one with scrolling wheels and another with dials. These input options make the MasterHUB stand out from other macropads aimed at creators, like the Elgato Stream Deck, or mechanical switch-based options, like Megalodon’s popular macropads. The Thunderbolt-connected base can hold two to six modules, depending on their sizes. Cooler Master is reportedly planning on making an even bigger base that can hold more modules.

The MasterHUB may end up a modular headache, though, if programming is complex or buggy. I’ve used Cooler Master’s frustrating peripherals software before, so it’s good to hear it’s working on a new app for this product.

Cooler Master will sell the MasterHUB as three premade kits (video editor, photo editor, and streamer) and will eventually sell lone modules.

Some mildly bad news for the Bezos money machine: Amazon is being slapped with a $25 million fine over its practices for handling children’s data through its Alexa voice-activated assistant and Echo devices. That sounds like a lot to those of us that aren’t mega conglomerates or their leadership, but it’s about two days worth of income for Amazon based on its recent sales performance.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) today announced they have jointly filed a complaint against Amazon, saying the company “prevented parents from exercising their deletion rights under the COPPA Rule, kept sensitive voice and geolocation data for years, and used it for its own purposes, while putting data at risk of harm from unnecessary access.

“Today’s settlement on Amazon Alexa should set off alarms for parents across the country — and is a warning for every AI company sprinting to acquire more and more data.”

FTC Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya

The child privacy laws Amazon is accused of breaking

COPPA, which stands for the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, refers to a 1998 law passed by the U.S Congress, which states that “operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps and IoT devices, such as smart toys)” that reach children under age 13 must post clear privacy policies, provide direct notice to parents, and allow parents to delete the information and prevent further collection.

“Amazon’s behavior in retaining children’s voice recordings indefinitely and ignoring parents’ requests for deletion contravenes COPPA and prioritizes profit over privacy,” argued Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “COPPA unequivocally prohibits companies from indefinitely storing children’s data without just cause, especially not for algorithm training purposes.”

A warning to the AI industry

One of the FTC Commissioners, Alvaro M. Bedoya, also took the opportunity to tweet out a direct cautionary note to the fast-growing AI industry and any companies using machine learning: “Today’s settlement on Amazon Alexa should set off alarms for parents across the country — and is a warning for every AI company sprinting to acquire more and more data.”

In response to these charges, a proposed federal court order has been issued, pending approval, mandating that Amazon delete inactive child accounts, certain voice recordings, and geolocation data, and prohibit the company from using such data to train its algorithms.

Where Amazon went wrong

Despite Amazon’s repeated assurances to users about the ability to delete voice and geolocation data collected by its Alexa voice assistant service, the complaint alleges that the company reneged on these promises by retaining and leveraging the data for improving its Alexa algorithm.

Amazon, a leading global retailer, amasses extensive user data, including geolocation and voice recordings. It defends its data handling practices by claiming its Alexa service and Echo devices are designed with user privacy in mind, including parental controls for deleting geolocation data and voice recordings.

The complaint reveals that even when parents requested the deletion of their children’s voice recordings, Amazon failed to completely erase the transcripts from its databases, undermining the COPPA Rule that requires parental consent for the collection of children’s data, among other measures.

The FTC also filed a complaint today against Amazon’s home security subsidiary, Ring, over allegations that it jeopardized its customers’ privacy by allowing any employee or contractor to access private videos, and for failing to establish basic privacy and security measures.