Note To DHS: Searching A Laptop Is Not The Same As Searching A Backpack
Note To DHS: Searching A Laptop Is Not The Same As Searching A Backpack
Our guest blogger, Peter Swire, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and served as the Clinton administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy, working on encryption policy and other issues.
The Department of Homeland Security has offered a new, unconvincing argument for why they can conduct border searches, and take travelers’ laptops and other electronic devices without needing any reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The public needs to help Homeland Security understand why they’re wrong.
The background: Senator Russ Feingold held the first Congressional hearing on border laptop searches on June 25, and I testified about the many reasons such searches should only be done when the government has reasonable suspicion about a traveler. Homeland Security did not provide a witness, but issued guidelines for border laptop searches on July 16. These guidelines hit the front page of the Washington Post last week, with new focus on the issue in the traditional media and leading online sources such as DailyKos and Salon. Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress Action Fund began its “Hands off My Laptop” campaign, calling for Homeland Security to put privacy safeguards in place for these searches.
On August 5, Jayson Ahern, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, responded to this growing public concern. His basic argument is there’s nothing new here at all — border searches have been conducted since the birth of the Republic:
Making full use of our search authorities with respect to items like notebooks and backpacks, while failing to do so with respect to laptops and other devices, would ensure that terrorists and criminals receive less scrutiny at our borders just as their use of technology is becoming more sophisticated.
Homeland Security seems to need help in understanding why searching a backpack for drugs is different from taking a laptop and copying everything on it. Here are three reasons why laptop searches are more intrusive:
1. Laptop searches last far longer. The backpack search is complete when the traveler leaves the border. For a typical laptop, the government can make a copy and then search every file at its leisure.
2. It’s like searching your home. Our laptops contain family photos, medical records, finances, personal diaries, and all the other detailed records of our most personal lives. Having the government rummage through all these files is like searching your home, and that requires a probable cause warrant.
3. Confidential and privileged information. Many kinds of confidential information are in laptops, including journalists’ notes about an investigative story, trade secrets and other key business information, and many more. Lawyers’ laptops contain attorney-client privileged information, as reinforced by a recent case that says the privilege is lost once the government sees a file during a search.
The Homeland Security blog lets you post your own reasons why searching a laptop is more intrusive than searching a backpack. Let them know your reasons, and participate in the online campaigns of “Hands Off My Laptop” and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, I’d hate for DHS to find the kiddie po— oh wait….nevermind.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pmAs I pointed out the first time this story broke, any “terrorist” isn’t going to be stupid enough to carry sensitive/incriminating data on a laptop across the border where they know it will be searched. They’ll upload itto the Internet where they can access it from anywhere.
This law wasn’t designed to catch terrorists. It’s designed to “sneak peek” at journalist reports.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pmCould a person hide a bomb in a laptop? I’m not an explosives expert, so I’m just asking the question.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pmpoint being that it may be a good idea to just have them turn it on at the border…
August 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pmphantasymanINphantasyland Says:
Could a person hide a bomb in a laptop?
- - Sure. The DVD of Speed Racer.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pmphantasymanINphantasyland Says:
Could a person hide a bomb in a laptop? I’m not an explosives expert, so I’m just asking the question.
What would be the point? If you target was the border guards, just wear an explosive vest or carry in a grenade.
If your target was inside the U.S., if you could make a bomb sophisticated enough to fit in a laptop, you could build it from scratch once you’re across the border.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pmYo Tattoo, they’re not searching for bombs when scanning your hard drive.
How do the wingnuts type while drooling all over their keyboards???
August 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm- - Sure. The DVD of Speed Racer.
Ouch, those wacky Wachowski brothers and their horrible, horrible movie.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pmDieNowForPeace Says:
——————————————————————————–
Yo Tattoo, they’re not searching for bombs when scanning your hard drive.
How do the wingnuts type while drooling all over their keyboards???
Can you speak without attempting to use insults? As if my feelings are gonna be hurt or something? I just asked a simple question, which apparently you lacked the mental capacity to answer rationally.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:38 pmAnd to answer your question, we just push the wet keys duh!
phantasymanINphantasyland Says
August 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Could a person hide a bomb in a laptop? I’m not an explosives expert, so I’m just asking the question.
___________________________________________________________
The only way one could hide an explosive device in a laptop would be to gut the entire thing and fill the shell with some kind of explosive that packs a powerful punch — like a plastic explosive.
It wouldn’t be a suitcase nuclear device, but it could blast a hole in an airplane. For this reason, it’s already permissible for airport security to request the laptop owner to turn it on, to prove that it functions.
Of course, laptops aren’t the only way to smuggle plastic explosives on board an aircraft. This is why airport security is on the lookout for anything they see on their x-ray that mimics the appearance and density of explosives — which is why so many fruitcakes get stopped (yeah — we all knew fruitcake could have lethal properties).
Searching for weapons or explosives that could put travelers at risk is reasonable. Searching for information merely to spy on people is not.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pmI just asked a simple question, which apparently you lacked the mental capacity to answer rationally.
Well, here’s on back at ya fcukwit:
Why do trolls come here and ask us to do their dirty work?
Didn’t mommy ever make you do your own homework, it did she do it for you?
August 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm“2. It’s like searching your home. Our laptops contain family photos, medical records, finances, personal diaries, and all the other detailed records of our most personal lives. Having the government rummage through all these files is like searching your home, and that requires a probable cause warrant.”
Exactly and when some scumbags who are spreading around malware and crap their company should be charged with breaking and entering and destruction of property.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pmWelcome to Fascism 2.0…sucks don’t it?
August 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pmRE10;
misshusseinmolly
I thank you for a rational, logical answer. I guess I didn’t see that it said they wanted to search hard drives. I have a lot of stuff on mine and who has that kind of time to sift through all the crap that’s on there anyways. I can’t even tell you what’s on mine.
As for the person that posted after you (post 11) thakns fro shraing wiht us yoru superiro intelletc. I hoep othesr aer as enlightende as I am nwo.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pmObviously, Tattoo didn’t do so well in reading comprehension or in completing it’s own homework without mommy’s help.
How cute.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pmObviously you learned how to use spellcheck between your last two posts.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pmpoint being that it may be a good idea to just have them turn it on at the border…
You do realize there’s a link in the story at the top of this page, and, had you bothered to follow it and read the whole story, you could have saved the world your wasted bandwidth by not asking the most obvious question.
Just sayin…
And I don’t “do” spellcheck. It’s for mental weaklings.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pmWe have a 2 party system and they both sold us down the river on warrantless wire-tapping!
If you want your freedoms back you’re gonna have to march in the streets!!! And vote against ALL TRAITORS regardless of party affiliation!!!!
August 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pmThere is NO possible justification for scanning hard drives on laptops of travelers. The risk of a terrorist having the plans for a dirty bomb is totally outweighed by the intrusion into thousands of persons private computer files.
Oh, and those plans are already on the intertubes, but don’t ask for the url or I’ll have to report you ~
August 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pmRE 17 DieNowForPeace Says:
Mr. Funny guy,
I apologize that I am fairly new to Think Progress and I did not realize that there was a link at the top of the page. There is a lot to read here and I am a busy guy so I apologize that my oversight offended you. As for your cutesy little rant about saving bandwidth and blah blah blah, thanks for sharing your “progressive” views. It’s no wonder there’s such division between you and the conservatives, as soon as you hear something that you might not like, you espouse hatred and name calling. How very progressive of you. Do you actually kiss your mother with that mouth?
August 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pmLets face it…this is going on for these reasons:
1. DHS employees have found a new way about getting good porno vids/pics that were accidentally deleted when the White House e-mail delete attachment was opened by an intern.
2. These dullards aren’t getting paid that well, so they need to sell hacked video games for residual income…and they know those laptops coming in from Japan and out of the Bay Area and Seattle are prime areas to take from.
3. You just have to know some d!ckhead supervisor has initiated a scavenger hunt for whacked stuff found and turned in off of these laptops. What is the reward? How about seventh row, nose bleed at the GOP convention!
4. These a$$es can’t wait until they find a celebrity sex tape by “accident” and make an easy six figures for the “accidental” e-mail sent out with the attachment of said material on it.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pmIt’s completely unnecessary to search a laptop.
If I want to bring Cocaine, Marijuana, Alcohol, prostitutes, illegal immigrants, nuclear materials or explosives across the border I physically have to cross the border with them. The government can make a case they have an interest in preventing this through searching me.
But, if I want to bring nuclear plans, bomb making plans, child pornography, or any other computer data into this country I can do it from the privacy of my own home. I never have to cross the border like do in all the cases mentioned above. The government has no compelling reason to force me to turn over data I could have gotten without crossing the border.
The logic for not searching laptops is the same reason we don’t do drug searches on domestic flights. It’s cheaper and less risky for drug dealers to drive the merchandise across the U.S.
The government can’t prove searching all air passengers would limit the drug traffic in the U.S. with readily available cheaper alternatives to air travel.
The government can’t prove they have a compelling interest in violating our rights if we can easily bring the data in without ever leaving the country.
It’s an absolutely ludicrous argument the government is making.
Note: If this comment is not posted then I will make sure every liberal blog becomes aware that are you are trying to censor this crucial rebuttal to your argument. How can you not look at yourselves and think, “I am such an idiot for violating American’s privacy rights for something that protects the U.S. in no discernible way.”
August 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pmNote: My comment above about censorship applied to the DHS website. Not think progress.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pmDo you actually kiss your mother with that mouth?
Not often, she smokes and smells like an ashtray.
Learned all the cuss words from her too.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm#20 “It’s no wonder there’s such division between you and the conservatives, as soon as you hear something that you might not like, you espouse hatred and name calling. How very progressive of you. Do you actually kiss your mother with that mouth?”
Well THAT didn’t take long did it?
August 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pmphantasymanINphantasyland Says:
Could a person hide a bomb in a laptop? I’m not an explosives expert, so I’m just asking the question.
####
Well, I am an explosives expert, at least according to the US Army. And yes, you could hide a very small bomb in a laptop - don’t believe what you see in the movies, it takes a lot of plastic to do a lot of damage. However, simply opening the laptop, x-raying it, or running an explosives detector over it would find a bomb. There is no need to search the hard drive, as the bomb is going to be embedded in a mp3.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm5th Estate Says: Well THAT didn’t take long did it?
Please don’t misunderstand, the conservatives are guilty of the same thing, I just thought that progressives claimed to have the moral high ground. I am reading through this website to see if it’s true… not so sure I believe it yet.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pmWhile I agree with the overall point of this entry, I must take issue with the characterization of the holding in the U.S. v. General Maritime Management case. That case did not hold that attorney-client privilege was waived simply because the government saw a document or file. The case turned on a long-standing principle that disclosure of privileged material to a third party amounts to a waiver of the privilege. In that case, the third party just happened to be the government.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pmChris L Says:
There is no need to search the hard drive, as the bomb is going to be embedded in a mp3.
The bomb is probably hidden in an mp3 by Brittney Spears…
August 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pmphantasymanINphantasyland Says:
The bomb is probably hidden in an mp3 by Brittney Spears…
#####
BAD VISUAL!! Does anyone have some steel wool?
August 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pmI did not realize that there was a link at the top of the page.
WTF? Are you Larry King? Ever heard of “the google”?
See the pretty highlighted words that are underlined?
These are called “links”, and clicking on them takes you to another website.
And the “thing” we’re communicating across the phone lines with is called the “internet”.
I’m sure there’s a community college in your area that offers computer 101 classes to those left behing the 20th century technology…
August 7th, 2008 at 7:01 pmWe were discussing this the other day at work (IT and security section). One scenario we came up with was the following:
Suppose a HR employee of Company XY carries her laptop back across the border. Her laptop has encrypted personnel files of other employees at Company XY. Customs demands the passwords, etc of the files (which we’re told they can now do) and then copies the hard drive. She gets her laptop back days later.
Now, several months later, it turns out that employees’ personal data is found being used in identity theft scams. Research finds that only employees that had information on her computer are involved so she gets in trouble, fired, reprimanded, etc because “she must have allowed her laptop to be misappropriated, hacked, etc”. How does anyone know that the theft didn’t occur as a result of the DHS copying. Maybe the material was hacked there. Maybe someone in their employee mishandled the material. Maybe someone in there needed some extra money. The more places the information is stored, the more places in can be obtained from.
This is just of the many, many, many scenarios we came up with in the space of about 15 minutes, in addition to attorney/client privilege, HIPPA, financial records, etc.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:08 pmphantasy…: Please don’t misunderstand, the conservatives are guilty of the same thing, I just thought that progressives claimed to have the moral high ground. I am reading through this website to see if it’s true… not so sure I believe it yet.
I’ll speak for myself here:
You write “the conservatives are guilty of the same thing”.
What thing? Moral high ground?
Have “progressives” promoted a made possible a war of choice that is bankrupting this country , that has displaced millions and killed possibly a million? Have progressives denied the degradation of the environment? Have progressives demanded the expulsion of Arabic translators because of their sexuality, in the GWOT? Have progressives insisted on reducing the health care of Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans?
Have progressives shot any doctors or firebombed any medical facilities as conservatives es have? Have any progressives dragged any conservatives to death because they were “rednecks” or “conservative” as has happened to gays? Have any progressives demand that the US start another war?
Have any progressives encouraged spying on US citizens, in direct contravention of the US Constitution? Have any progressives demanded that the right of habeas corpus should be determined solely by the President?
I’m simply agog waiting to hear your arguments claiming parity between conservatives and progressives.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:35 pmFed Ex or UPS to your destination and do the same on the way back.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pmphantasymanINphantasyland: Could a person hide a bomb in a laptop? I’m not an explosives expert, so I’m just asking the question.
Chris L: Well, I am an explosives expert, at least according to the US Army. And yes, you could hide a very small bomb in a laptop - don’t believe what you see in the movies, it takes a lot of plastic to do a lot of damage. However, simply opening the laptop, x-raying it, or running an explosives detector over it would find a bomb. There is no need to search the hard drive, as the bomb is going to be embedded in a mp3.
And I happen to be something of a laptop expert, having been obliged as a ‘CSR’ to field-strip IBM and Toshiba laptops from 1998 and 2001 for a number of Fortune 100 companies. The only practical space for explosives in a laptop would be in a drive-bay or battery bay.
When I was working on a project to distribute 12,000 laptops to Prudential Insurance sales-people across the country in 1998 it was customary at major airports (LAX for example) for airport security to insist I power-up my own laptop under their observation right at the x-ray conveyor belt.
I doubt that the security staff knew what they were really asking—they were just following orders. If my laptop CD/floppy bay had been packed with about 8-oz of Semtex or C-4 behind the drive-bay bezel then the boot-sequence would have flashed a drive failure on the screen. Would they have noticed?–Probably not. Would the Windows OS-Interface show up? Yes it would. Could I get through the boot-up examination? Of course.
But it still had to be x-rayed and with all the laptops going through even the most dimwitted operator would notice the difference between a clearly-defined drive component and a fuzzy mass on-screen.
So the answer is that in 2008 no relevant explosive can be successfully hidden inside a laptop if it passes through normal channels.
As also essentially noted ‘professional’ terrorists are unlikely to commit sensitive files to a traveling laptop passing through clearly defined security checkpoints.
I suppose on the off-chance it is still possible, after all I got through Heathrow security on my way back to the US on the wrong passport (my brother’s passport—who of course got through on my passport—we were traveling together) in 2006. But our bags were x-rayed and sniffed and we didn’t have laptops. The entire scenario is stupid and doesn’t require the copying of hard drives. Per your moniker here at TP, such policies are the result of pure ‘phantasy’.
Being “new” here is no excuse for your frankly juvenile inquiries–unless you are 12 years old–in which case i doubt your ignorance confusion about buried web-page graphic title links, combined with your subsequent pseudo-sophisticated protestations.
There have been a lot of newcomers here in the last few days on the last few threads and they al seem to be comfortable with this environment from the get-go, contributing substantially to the topic at hand rather than diverting the principal issue of the thread with uninformed pondering in their very first comments.
YOu are the newbie by your own admission, so wipe your feet and listen for a while.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:16 pmThis is political intimidation meant for the real journalists out there. Funny thing is this story sounds more like corporate news coverage of the Beijing Olympics.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:32 pmThis quote by Ahern about “terrorists and criminals” reminded me of another incident involving a suspected terrorist and his computer.
In August 2001, weeks before the 9/11 attacks, a guy named Moussaoui was arrested in the Midwest by FBI field agents after flight instructors at a Midwest flight school grew suspicious of Moussaoui because he only wanted to learn how to fly a 747, not learn how to take off or land one.
The FBI agents wanted to search all of Moussaoui’s personal effects, including his computer, so they put in an urgent request with Ashcroft’s FBI headquarters for a search warrant. The FBI field agents were repeatedly rebuffed in the following weeks, with these agents growing more and more desperate, until they settled on the plan of extraditing Moussaoui to England so his personal effects, including his computer, could be searched while going through customs (i.e. crossing the border). This custom’s check was to have happened on 9/11. Too late.
Under FISA, of course, the FBI field agents could have searched Moussaoui’s personal effects and then FBI headquarters (Ashcroft) could have gone to the FISA court within forty-eight hours afterward, explained the reason for their warrantless search and requested a retroactive search warrant. Maybe, just maybe, the 9/11 hijackings by a bunch of right-wing religious fundamentalist fanatics could have been averted or at least mitigated.
So, now the culture of corruption Republicans, after blowing off a perfectly legal pre-FISA-warrant search of a foreign national’s personal effects while in FBI custody, are conducting warrantless searches of laptops at border crossings, but without that pesky FISA, probable cause or the Fourth Amendment getting in their way, which leads me to suspect that Ahern isn’t really stating what the warrantless border searches are really meant to find.
Hey, your guess is as good as mine what this is, but we all know by now that BushCo and the right-wing religious fundamentalist Republicans have been using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to promote their own right-wing religious fundamentalist agenda, as they seek to “clean up” our democratic society just like the al Qaeda right-wing religious fundamentalists would love to “clean up” our democratic society as well as all “offensive” western democracies.
Haven’t you noticed, all right-wing religious fundamentalist types think the same, and seek to censor exactly the same things?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:29 pmWizard 2000:
“Under FISA, of course, the FBI field agents could have searched Moussaoui’s personal effects and then FBI headquarters (Ashcroft) could have gone to the FISA court within forty-eight hours afterward, explained the reason for their warrantless search and requested a retroactive search warrant.”
“So, now the culture of corruption Republicans, after blowing off a perfectly legal pre-FISA-warrant search of a foreign national’s personal effects while in FBI custody, are conducting warrantless searches of laptops at border crossings, but without that pesky FISA, probable cause or the Fourth Amendment getting in their way, which leads me to suspect that Ahern isn’t really stating what the warrantless border searches are really meant to find.”
Exactly! Well observed!
August 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pmAs if a schemeing Snydly Whiplash would not encode his information into regular texts that a layman of security would never notice ??
Peop;e traveling woth notebooks shoud simply mail them one month in advance to where they will be traveling that it may then simple be picked up after a stout background check and investigation of asid laptop owner.
Perhaps the wrist band that can electrocute you into psychosis can be placed on the laptop and its owner?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:55 pm#39 Robt…
no one could imagine a terrorist mailing a…… oh, yeah…ummm… as you were. :)
August 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pmYeah, let DHS know you don’t want them to search your laptop and next time you fly, they will. If they let you fly at all.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:22 pmThis brings up an obvious problem:
Let’s assume that:
1) A terrorist is stupid enough to carry incriminating evidence across the border on his/her laptop.
2) Said terrorist doesn’t bother to encrypt the evidence in a hidden file.
3) Out of the millions of people who cross the border every day, this terrorist is one of the unlucky few who get “randomly” selected for secondary inspection.
The probability of this series of events happening is already infinitesimally small. My questions is: how would Border Security even spot the “evidence” among the gazillion files that populate the average laptop? Border security guys aren’t all NSA material and I doubt the terrorist would name the files containing the sinister plans something obvious. Sure, there are plenty of data mining methods (which probably wouldn’t work anyway), but I doubt the guy in the pic above is doing anything more than randomly clicking through vacation pictures.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:08 am.
Q U E S T I O N:
Since when has “Papers please” been the standard operation of security in America?
Since when has the lack of warrants to search all travelers been the standard operation?
Then, are we all being presumed guilty and only allowed the freedom of travel when we have proven ourselves innocent of any potentiality to create havoc?
I say, prove I’m a terrorist, THEN you can search me.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS ONLY DEAD WHEN IT IS NOT EXORCISED AND ENFORCED!
It is an individual inalienable Right we all possess. USE IT! ENFORCE IT! EXORCISE YOUR RIGHT… or face losing it.
.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:04 amThis is what you get when YOU voted - twice - for George W. Bush.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:36 amBorder areas are very strange when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. Big Brother can do pretty much whatever they want. And that includes when you LEAVE the U.S. The U.S. Feds frequently have searches on cars and people on the way INTO Mexico now.
Unfortunately, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” is quickly becoming just a nice quote from some dude from the past and not a reality anymore.
The Terrorists are winning - thanks to morons in the White House and Congress.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:46 am@drago
Correction: “The Terrorists are winning–thanks to the Terrorists in the White House and Congress.”
How long before the DHS is planting “evidence” on the seized laptops before returning them?
August 8th, 2008 at 6:41 amDid anyone say Fascist Police State.
Too late - the train has left the station.
The Neo-cons want to be just like China.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:09 amCant a person replace the guts of a larger laptop say a 19 inch with those from those ultra mobile ones. I mean it would still turn on but there would be alot more space to put a bomb in there. The Eee has a 7inch screen and uses flash memory that would take up very little space in a laptop with a 19inch screen. So they could still turn it on, and still use explosives but as one guy said b4 a scanner should easily detect it.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pmCould a person hide a bomb in a laptop?
this question is totally irrelevant.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:52 pmFirst is… “hey guys, be a patriot… if ya got nothing to hide let us listen to your phone calls!”
Now its, “Hey we’ve always had the right to search your lap top!” (Big difference between physically searching, and virtual searching)
Next is, “Hey! You’ve won a weekend stay at a hotel!… while we search through your house! After all, you DID just get back from that Mexico trip, better safe than sorry, TRUST US, its our job!! :)”
August 8th, 2008 at 9:33 pmThey can copy the hard drive, I dont care, but I dont have to cooperate with anything.
I have the right to remain silent and anything I say may be used against me.
Just use truecrypt and don’t tell them the password.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pmPlead the 5th amendment if they ask, you are entitled to.
This policy is bound to lead to Customs and Border Security battling it out with another government agency in court. Official DHHS policies state that all government laptops be encrypted with “approved encryption software, whether or not the PCs contain sensitive or personal information. Employees also must encrypt portable media, such as flash drives, if they contain sensitive government data.” Most federal employees travel with government issued laptops. What happens when a customs agent demands to see data that another federal employee is forbidden from divulging?
August 9th, 2008 at 1:45 amSo many people here complaining that DHS is violating their 4th amendment and privacy rights…yet in November they are going to cheerfully vote for McCain or Obama…both who have trashed the 4th amendment with their votes and policies….or they are going to vote to re-elect their incumbent senator or Congressman who also trashed the 4th amendment.
All I can say is these people deserve to learn their lesson the hard way…so don’t expect me to feel sorry for these people if DHS searches their laptop.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pmWhile I may not agree with the policy, the fact is that any time one crosses a border, one sheds one’s rights. International laws may apply but that is a tenuous basis for personal rights protections at this point in time as many governments are loathe to shed their sovereignty and yield to transnational authority (this issue will one day be addressed but I do not anticipate it soon).
A more defensible position is that such actions are not searches but are in fact seizures without a lawful justification. This allows application of property rights (which the US vigorously supports) and the takings clause of the 5th amendment. Only contraband items are subject to arbitrary seizure and absent some lawful basis for judging one’s data to be contraband (ex: images of child exploitation) there is no justifiable legal rationale that I am aware of supporting such “takings” of behalf of the government.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am