Slashdot Mirror


The Failing Right of Laptop Privacy

davidwr writes "Wired has an interesting editorial on laptop searches and seizures. It raises some interesting issues, including employee rights against police searches in the workplace, routine vs. non-routine searches at ports of entry, and police use of unrelated data found in a database search. The article ends saying: 'Of course, there's a chance that the courts will not recognize the different scope of privacy interests at stake in computer searches, or will not be adept at crafting a rule that gives enough leeway and guidance to law enforcement, while also protecting privacy. At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.'"

12 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. At that point, the Constitution may fail us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The constitution certainly left the building back in the age of the new deal, possibly even as early as aliens and sedition.

    1. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by genrader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AMEN. The New Deal was not the last of the Constitution though. Alien and Sedition Acts were bad, as were many other things, but the death of the Constitution was in 1913, when Congress took away its own power to coin money and gave it to a private bank, as well as the introduction of the income tax and the end of Senators being elected by states. The only reason we have it so good now is because of our wariness of tyranny and the great age of capitalism, but that will all end when the right tyrant comes along.

    2. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by k1e0x · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Word.

      1913 was the *start* of us loosing our rights but with the recent stuff (patriot act, land seizures, warrant less wire taping, military tribunals) its all gone now.

      I cant think of a single part of the bill of rights that we still have.

      Why is speech "limited" at political rallies or universities? Why is hate speech a crime? ..because the 1st Amendment is meaningless.

      Why are there gun laws restricting firearms? ..because the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

      The 3rd.. is possibly impractical.. and also probably meaningless as well.. but if not, the feds will find a way to make it legal.

      The government can search practically anything they want now? Laptops, Phone records, E-Mail, you name it, why? ..because the 4th Amendment is meaningless.

      How can the City of New London takes peoples land and give it to Pfizer? ..because the 5th Amendment is meaningless.

      Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail? ..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.

      Why does just about everyone accused of mutable crimes seek a plea bargain for a lesser offence instead of standing up for there rights? Why does the state tack on so many charges with extreme punishment (101 years for spamming)? ..because the 7th Amendment is -basically- meaningless.

      Why is a man being sentenced to 101 years for spamming? Why is another man sentenced (and denied appeal) to 50 years in prison for selling pot? Why are children being convicted of molesting each other? ..because the 8th Amendment is meaningless.

      Why does the government have the power to do anything we don't specially say they don't have or can pick apart and widdle down the other rights we have? Why is it the people reserve no rights beyond what's listed in the constitution .. that or what the government allows? ..because the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless.

      We have a "vestige" of the construction.. we don't actually have enforceable rights in the same sense as they were written. The Ed Brown case is part of this, the court would not allow him to use constructional law in his court. read that again.. you can't use the construction.. the highest law on of land in a U.S. federal court. The judges swear an oath to it but its entirely irreverent anymore.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  2. And Hopefully... by photomonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    When the day comes that the Constitution can no longer protect us in the information age, we have a Congress actually interested and willing to step in on behalf of the people.

    --
    Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    1. Re:And Hopefully... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. -G.B. Shaw

      KFG

    2. Re:And Hopefully... by zCyl · · Score: 4, Informative
      When the day comes that the Constitution can no longer protect us in the information age

      Uh, but it does, and plainly so. Not only is a laptop part of a person's "effects" as protected explicitly in the fourth amendment, but the contents of a laptop are ones papers. The search of papers inside of a laptop is thus the same as the search of papers inside of an envelope. The transmission of a paper via email is no different than the transmission of a paper via postal mail. The constitution plainly and clearly provides protection for this, and it is simply a question of whether the courts will acknowledge this now, or come to their senses later. It is not exactly a matter of interpretation when the language is that clear.
    3. Re:And Hopefully... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than the majority deserves.

      Shaw used the royal "we" and his observation was directed at your point. Democratic forms of government at best serve the lowest common demoniator (which is something rather different than the majority). At worst it is, of course, nothing more than a self-satisfied lynch mob.

      Which is why the framers gave us a Congress instead of a democracy (they knew about Athens), under a constitution (they knew about Rome). They anticipated Shaw's further observation that anyone who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

      It is not the fault of Congress if the least common denominator has demanded more and more democracy while deserving it less and less.

      It is the fundamental premise of our governmental philosophy that the government will be corrupted and that it is the responsibility of The People, freemen all, to see to their own freedoms.

      Where The People demand the "freedom" to be endentured in order that they may be "free" to watch Survivor and Big Brother on a really big TV, that is the freedom they will get.

      Freedom is messy and uncomfortable. The People would rather be comfortable serfs than uncomfortable freemen, in numbers far greater than a simple majority. Let's call it, ooooooooh (pulling a number out of my ass that probably isn't too far wrong) - 98%.

      Give me liberty, or give me. . .ooooooooooooooo, shiney!

      KFG

  3. Congress makes laws in our interest?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.'"

    Turn to congress for help in protecting our liberties? Haha, that's a good one. He must be new here.

  4. So? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So keep your sensitive personal data on a server at home, where the protections against warrantless search and seizure are more clearly defined, and take with you on your laptop only what you need. Also there are all sorts of ways to remotely access your at-home data securely (DNS Forwarder/VPN, etc). That way your data is there when YOU need it and not sitting on your portable when you are crossing borders or sitting in your employer's office.
    I have made it quite clear to contractors that their laptops will be subject to scrutiny prior to their being permitted to access our corporate LAN, as well there my be periodic spot-checks, especially if I suspect that a laptop might have become infected with something nasty.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  5. Re:one word... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many countries, such as Britain, criminalize witholding encryption keys from law enforcement to the extent that unless you are actually a terrorist with detailed and executable plans of action labeled 'evil plot' stupidly stored on your laptop, you are probably better off (in the criminal liability sense) just giving it to them. Sadly, I don't think that the US is far behind on this one, either.

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  6. Encryption is the only real option by cje · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It doesn't matter if you're worried about a snooping government, script kiddies, nosy roommates or family members, or anybody else you don't want looking at your data. In this day and age, there really is no substitute for encryption, and there's also really no excuse to not be using it, given the amount of options (many of them free, as in speech and beer) available today. There's no reason to leave things like tax returns, sensitive work projects, etc. sitting out in the open.

    One of the best things that I've done recently is to wipe and randomize a 40-gig partition on one of my drives and set up a 256-bit AES-encrypted ext3 filesystem. Unless I enter my lengthy passphrase, there is no way to mount the volume, much less look at its contents. Barring some unforseen weakness in AES, this is now data that nobody but me will ever see (unless I do something silly like forget to unmount it).

    It is, in many ways, a brave new world, but people need to know that there are things they can do to protect themselves. This, of course, is not news to the Slashdot crowd, but it is something that the less-clueful public needs to hear about.

    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
  7. Failed what? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.

    Nonsense. The Constitution hasn't "failed us", it is our commitment to honoring its provisions that has wavered. The Constitution is just as relevant and meaningful now as it was two centuries ago. Furthermore, I would argue that it is more important than ever that we observe Constitutional law and hold our elected (and unelected!) officials accountable for their deviances from it.

    So far as Congress crafting better rules for the Information Age is concerned ... I'd not hold your breath. When they passed the DMCA and the Patriot Act I lost all hope of Congress ever being willing or able to legislate us out of this mess, given that they're most of the reason that we're in it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.