Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Laptop Travel Damage - Who's at Fault?

Posted by Cliff on from the yet-another-price-of-increased-security? dept.

Denagoth asks: "Due to increased security measures, airport personnel are now directly handling everyone's laptop, PDA, and other electronic gizmos. Who is at fault when (not if - but I've been lucky) an airport employee drops, damages, (or even worse) loses one of these devices? Has anyone had any experience in this area and are there any legal precedents to fall back on?"

3 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Receipt by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Average Joe: Hello, I'd like you to sign this receipt before I let you touch my laptop.

    Security Guy #1: Sir, hand me the laptop. You're causing a scene.

    Average Joe: No I'm not. I just want to ensure that my laptop is handled safely.

    Security Guy #1: Don't contradict me. I'm in charge here, and you're causing a scene.

    Average Joe: I really wasn't trying to contradi--

    Security Guy #1: All right, we've got a live one here. Bob, come over and help me out.

    Bob removes his security wand out from under the skirt of a nine-year-old girl. The girl's mother is against the wall being "patted down" by a couple of other guards.

    Security Guy #2 (Bob): What seems to be the problem?

    Security Guy #1: We've got a non-cooperative.

    Security Guy #2: Close the concourse. [Then speaking to our Average Joe, who tried to make a break for it, but has since been been detained by a couple of men in dark sunglasses.] Looks like we've found ourselves an enemy combatant.

    Meanwhile a pair of dark complexioned men in turbans walk past the ruckus. Average Joe hears the one whisper to the other: "Hey Mohammad, do you think we're winning?"

  2. US Constitution by mcelrath · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Dammit, I want my 4th Ammendment rights back:
    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The argument "we must search you because you might have a bomb/gun/dildo" is a valid statement for any person, anywhere, any time, under any circumstances. It was also true at the time the constitution was written. Nonetheless, we have the 4th Ammendment.

    Perhaps the solution is not in searching every person, everwhere, all the time, under all circumstances, but to address why we have created an entire subcontinent that wants us dead.

    -- Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    1. Re:US Constitution by mcelrath · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If the searches were being done by a private company, your statements would be correct.

      However, the searches are done by federal employees working for a federal agency, under mandate by the federal government. In my view, this directly violates the 4th ammendment, which does not allow the government to do this.

      To turn your argument around, YOU make the choice to leave the house every day. Before you leave the house you must inform your local sherrif so he can come over, pat you down, and ensure that you won't be walking the streets carrying a firearm. Would you consider that a volation of your rights? After all, you don't have to leave the house.

      Today to have access to most (all?) federal buildings you must also submit to a search, again by the government, without warrant, in violation of the 4th ammendment.

      Read the ammendment again. It says nothing about your choice to do diddly squat. The government simply is not granted the power to search you at its whim. The only arguing point about it is the definition of "unreasonable".

      -- Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.