Careful about this. This is one of those policies I can easily see changing at least for US citizens. (Hopefully they adjust the policy for everyone, but I'm less optimistic on this front).
My armchair thoughts on this is that it looks like their case is very strong, and the likelihood of this policy being struck down at least for US citizens is pretty high. Wouldn't mind a lawyer opinion, but at first glance I don't see a huge difference between the circumstances of Riley vs. California, and the cases represented here.
There are unfortunately people in this nation (as everywhere else) who are authoritarian oriented in nature, but there are also many in this country who push back. For US citizens, the best way to react to this is less Internet outrage, but ensure that one supports the ACLU and EFF, two organizations that have been critical in pushing back against the erosion of the 4th Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in Riley vs. California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California), unanimously held that warrantless searching of a cell phone is unconstitutional (violation of the 4th amendment). The ACLU and EFF have filed a case largely on this basis. (https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/alasaad-v-duke-complaint)
My armchair thoughts on this is that it looks like their case is very strong, and the likelihood of this policy being struck down at least for US citizens is pretty high. Wouldn't mind a lawyer opinion, but at first glance I don't see a huge difference between the circumstances of Riley vs. California, and the cases represented here.
There are unfortunately people in this nation (as everywhere else) who are authoritarian oriented in nature, but there are also many in this country who push back. For US citizens, the best way to react to this is less Internet outrage, but ensure that one supports the ACLU and EFF, two organizations that have been critical in pushing back against the erosion of the 4th Amendment.