Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Courts Consider Legality of Laptop Inspection

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the my-porn-is-all-grown-up-anyway dept.

ceide2000 writes "The government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer's hard drive, the government says, is no different from looking through a suitcase. One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit." This story follows up on a story about laptop confiscation at the borders from a few months ago.

42 of 595 comments (clear)

  1. next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    next is your banking information, previous employments, medical history and telephone calls made in the past 6 months.

    Welcome to the USA.

    1. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, however "The People" is more inclusive. Citizenry regards a group of people who belong to a certain status. "The People" is just vague enough to be all encompassing. Therefore, everybody here has those protections. When you limit it to citizens you create a disgusting class structure of rights.

    2. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't citizenry fall within 'The people'?


      The citizenry is a subset of the people. The word 'citizen' was left out of the Bill of Rights on purpose - the colonial British were fond of stripping citizenship in order to carry out all manner of injustice on people.

      Not to mention the fact that the political philosophy that gave birth to our nation does not limit human rights to "citizens" of some hypothetical state, but applies it to all humans equally. It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

      Which, incidentally, is why I don't buy any of the government's arguments about why imprisoning people in Guantanamo is legal.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    3. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These days it's so easy to say "Those rights aren't protected!" but most people forget that the Constitution was intended to tell the government the powers it has, not what rights the people have.


      For practical purposes, those rights aren't protected, because the Constitution does empower to government to do lots of things, and not in minute detail, but in broad terms. For example the Constitution gives the government the power to wage war or to enforce laws. If you've been paying attention, the big privacy problems come when the government is doing stuff it's supposed to be doing. The question is, how far can it go when it's doing what it's supposed to be doing?

      Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't really say.

      One claim is that it can go as far as proves useful; that if pursuing a particular course results in more criminals being caught or terrorists being thwarted. Such a course of action, in broad terms, is reasonable. It's the details that get unreasonable. An explicit and detailed right of privacy would make the government work harder in such cases. It would probably even work better. But the Constitution doesn't mandate good policy. It empowers the government (as you say) and protects citizens (although not as much as they think).

      It sounds reassuring to say that Constitutional strict construction restrains the government from impinging on individual liberties. It would be great if it were true. But it isn't. The government is empowered to do all kinds of things, that if done in certain ways would undoubtedly infringe on individual liberties, and the borders of how far it can go aren't spelled out very precisely, which means the border drawn around individuals is all the more important. Unfortunately the Constitution isn't so great there either.

      We think of ourselves as a free people. We think of our freedoms as guaranteed by our Constitution -- as indeed some of them are. We believe ourselves protected by the Constitution (whatever it actually says), and it is this which is the secret of American freedom. It is the certainty public outrage that restrains the government from all kinds of outrages against liberty. It isn't the Constitution, although that was a good effort for the 1700s, it is the American people's ability to get mad as hell that keeps Uncle Sam in line.

      We'd better hope we don't loose that ability.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:next will be... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we need is another ammendment that extends the protections of the bill of rights to anywhere under the control/power of the US (so they can't claim that the customs line isn't US territory) or their agents (so extraordinary rendition is prima facia illegal). That, and actually applying the 4th/14th to property seizure.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects.


      I should have chosen my words more carefully: they'd be stripped of the protections of the Magna Carta and associated law by merely declaring them enemies of the crown. Such abuse is well documented.

      Although I agree with your philosophy, I don't think your argument holds water.

      Fair enough.

      As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens.


      And on principle I simply can't accept those arguments. Anyone who is believed to have done something so heinous should have such evidence presented against them in a public court of law. Law, justice, its practice, and people's faith in the fairness of that law is seriously compromised when "justice" becomes something done in secret. I think the value of transparency and general faith in the principles of one's government are greater than the value of some supposed secret.

      Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.

      I ponder on that point frequently; it's unfortunate more of our founders' ideas weren't explicitly written down. So much of what they took for granted has changed. They KNEW it was inevitable that we'd lose sight of the principles on which this country was founded; Jefferson wrote extensively on the subject.

      Then, sometimes I think that BECAUSE they knew it was inevitable, they didn't attempt to stave it off; and instead allowed for the situation when revolutions would have to be fought again, because attempting to hold off the need for revolutions pretty much prolongs the inevitable.

      And then, sometimes, I get tired of thinking of the whole thing and wish I could be as indifferent as everyone else seems to be..
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    6. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do see this as rational and understandable, but I cannot accept it as "applies it to all humans equally" and not calling it "hypocritical".


      I was the GP.

      At any rate - yes, our founders struggled with the seeming hypocrisy of the issue for the rest of their lives. Jefferson was especially bothered by it, which is why he freed his slaves in his will. It was a terrible compromise made so that the US could be formed at all; the Southern States would not have joined the Revolutionary War had they not been promised that they would be able to keep their slaves, nor would they have ratified the US Constitution. In that case, unity was chosen as a higher value than the ideals the nation was founded on.

      Some call the Civil War the "last battle of the American Revolution" precisely because it finally addressed that issue.

      Killing people from your own nation just because they want to get rid of government is bit puzzling to me. Should the south be considered conquered territory? This sure sounds like flaming but I really want to know.


      I'm American; personally? I don't justify it. Some say it was an overall good because it eliminated slavery, which is a fair enough argument; the problem I have with it is that the Civil War was used to justify solidifying the power of the Federal Government over the many US States. It was at that point that the centralized power of the US began to grow, and we see what the effect of that concentration of power has been.

      Abraham Lincoln justified the war in legalese by saying there was no justification to dissolve the union, or more precisely, that there is no exit clause in the Constitution if States decided they no longer wanted to be part of it. It was a calculated risk backed up by military force but the justification he used has always been questionable.

      It was a laudable goal to eliminate slavery, but that wasn't the reason the Civil War started; it was only a very small part of it. Not until 1863 did Lincoln say that abolishing slavery was one of the goals; prior to that, it was all about putting down the rebellion.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
  2. But by kieran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can they demand you decrypt data or, worse, provide the key?

    1. Re:But by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could try answering the question instead of giving a snarky response ... the article "discusses" it, yes, but doesn't completely clarify the issue - the bottom line is that the 5th amendment 'probably applies' (I presume only to citizens?), but I'm guessing you're likely to be subjected to a fairly rigorous police-state-like series of events if you try to refuse to give your password. If you're just a tourist and not a citizen, you're probably a lot worse off too, I'm not sure what would happen.

  3. Suitcase opening... HAH! by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not suitcase snooping, this is opening a sealed envelope found within my suitcase and reading the contents even though both the suitcase and envelope test negative on the bomb sniffer.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
  4. No you have a choice. by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A. You can decrypt the data
    B. You can go back where you came from

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:No you have a choice. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful
      B. You can go back where you came from

      What if you came from the US? I know that many Americans are ok with tourists to the US having no privacy rights, but what about US citizens - is it ok that a citizen loses his rights as soon as he encounters US borders? It seems the 4th amendment ought to protect you against "unreasonable searches and seizures". It's certainly reasonable to search a suitcase for illegal drugs, explosives or quantities of goods which exceed the import limits. All of these things are directly border-related. However is it reasonable to search a laptop at the border? Sure a laptop might contain illegal files, but that's always the case. So if it's reasonable to search for these at the border, it should be reasonable to search for these on all computers all of the time.

    2. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A. You can decrypt the data
      B. You can go back where you came from
      C. You can avoid totalitarian states in the first place

      This is now a war on commerce, international science and visiting family. We have a new iron curtain.

    3. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Except as a US Citizen this is in violation of my Fourth Amendment rights...

      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. Simply entering the country is NOT PROBABLE CAUSE...

      ps. I come from this rapidly increasing (and already 100% fascist) Police State, called the U.S.
    4. Re:No you have a choice. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be true, but as far as information goes, there's nothing that you can't get into the country on a laptop hard disk that you couldn't just as easily bring over the internet. Worse, this only applies to people crossing at checkpoints. Mexicans seem to have no problem crossing almost anywhere there ISN'T check point

    5. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These court cases happened way before the current administration was though about and some were befor they were even born.

      Because they say something you don't agree with doesn't mean that they are wrong or prejudices by politics. It typically means that you are wrong or misguided. Nothing to get upset about, we learn and move on.

    6. Re:No you have a choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah. So just wait until they say, "Inspecting internet packets as they cross the border is no different from inspecting the contents of a hard drive as it crosses the border."

      If the government can define information as contraband like this, then freedom (in the form of speech, privacy, and so forth) is profoundly weakened.

  5. If you can search a suitcase... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can search a hard drive. Claiming that a hard drive is an extension of your memory is bullshit. If the government can search your suitcase, I see no problem with them searching your hard drive. If you have something you don't want them to find, encrypt it. Hide it. Do something other than leaving it in plain sight of a simple search.

  6. 4th Amendment by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess if they're going to ignore the 4th Amendment when it comes to suitcases, they might as well ignore it when it comes to laptops. After all, who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"

  7. I'm holding this airplane hostage with excel! by pwnies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that software doesn't pose a "threat to national security" if it's transfered on an airplane. Sure they may say that "We want to keep hacker software and naughty viruses out!", which is ginger and all, but there's this one new thing, maybe you've heard of it TSA - called the internet. So really I have to ask why do they need to search peoples hard drives? The people could easily just leave their data at home or on a remote server and transfer it to their laptops once they land.

    On the subject of encrypted data, here's an interesting question, what if the user doesn't have the key (e.g. a messenger)? Do they have to delete that data? And how do they know it's entirely deleted? Do they run Nuke and Boot on the user's hard drive?

    It seems to me this is just a classic case of political "Lets make laws on things that we don't understand and scare us".

  8. Lessons by Thansal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "There are all sorts of lessons in these cases. One is that the border seems be a privacy-free zone. A second is that encryption programs work. A third is that you should keep your password to yourself. And the most important is that you should leave your laptop at home."

    Don't forget the one about not being a pedo, I mean, I know, it isn't that obvious, but still, just in case you didn't catch it, don't be a damn pedo.

    Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about boarder inspections. Yes, they are important to some degree (it IS illegal to traffic in certain things). However, they should also have a good REASON to search you.

    If we accept them doing random stops and searches (I honestly don't know how I feel about this), or if they have good reason to stop and search you, then I have no problem with them searching your laptop as well. They obviously should not keep records of ANYTHING found in there (unless breaking a specific law), however searching a laptop when you are already searching the person/car for somethign that likely could be found on the laptop? why not?

    All in all, I dono. It seems a slippery slope problem, but it also seems relatively reasonable (Again, assuming there is a good reason for the search in the first place)

    --
    Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
  9. I guess they don't like tourism revenue by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all, they keep giving us foreigners more and more reasons to avoid the US and spend our money elsewhere.

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  10. What government would do if they could by alextheseal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a perfect example of the government tipping their hand. Every time they say, trust us with your privacy, think back to what they do when they have no constrains.

  11. they can stick theyre hand up your butt by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they can stick theyre hand up your butt, why would you be worried about your laptop. your laptop won't cry in the shower to boy george after it's violating probing.

  12. Porn, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Title 19, 1305:

    All persons are prohibited from importing into the United States
    from any foreign country [ ..treasonous material, or.. ] any obscene book, pamphlet, paper,
    writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other
    representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or
    any cast, instrument, or other article which is obscene or immoral.

    There you go.

  13. You're doing it the hard way. by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I wanted to get information across the border without being noticed, I'd put it on an FTP site and email the link and login info to myself, to a webmail account that I can access anywhere merely by memorizing the username and password. No need to even have the POP3 access info on the laptop, let alone the "incriminating data".

    In fact if transporting data is your only reason for entering the country, just upload the nefarious data to one of the free FTP sites, and email the link to your partners-in-crime. Why risk being caught at the border??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  14. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oooh... good point. In some case the old 'diplomatic immunity' would get you through those checkpoints but other workers would not be so lucky. Yeah this is stupd in so many ways. We are just descending into a Hitler-esque nightmare (aka George Bush wet dream) more and more.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  15. Re:New plan for border agents... by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Folder on desktop named "Kiddie pics?" Check.

    After they see the "kiddie pics" folder, you get segregated. Now sit on your ass for a couple hours while they call a higher level agent to OPEN the folder.

    "Thousands of JPGs within? Check."

    Sit through another couple of hours of interrogation, trying to get you to reveal what's in the folder. Then they call a computer forensics "expert" to analyze the files.

    "All JPGs are hello.jpg? Checkmate"

    They spend another few hours trying to determine if the Goatse Guy is under 16. Then they call in a higher level computer forensics "expert" to analyze the files for steganography.

    By that time, you may as well BE the Goatse Guy - you are about as fucked as you are ever going to get.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  16. Ridiculous by poptones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are not looking for passwords to nuclear reactor equipment - the clowns at the border probably wouldn't recognize such lists unless they were marked "passwords to nuclear reactor equipment." They're not even looking for bootlegged movies because they'd be detaining damn near everyone with a laptop.

    No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

    It's encouraging to see ONE judge in this country got it right - _personal_ computers are an extension of our mind and deserve the utmost protection.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

      Tell that to the thousands of children who are victimized making said 'pix'. I could see someone arguing against this as an intrusive search and you and I might agree on those points, but that comment was plain idiotic. Pedophilia is real and dangerous.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named?

      No, what will happen is some asshole tech company will sell the Feds on an "Anti-Terrorism Border-Defense Cyberscanning System". They'll just pull the drive out of your laptop, drop it into this gadget, and and let it do the fishing automatically while-you-wait. If it comes up with a red flag (say, potential kiddie-porn, nuclear secrets or whatever) you get cavity-searched and are never heard from again.

      There's a couple billion to be made right there, I'd say. All you have to do to make it work is teach the guards how to rip a drive out of a laptop without static-zapping it.

      Okay, so that's a stumbling block.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  17. That's the point. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The constitution, 4th amendment included, applies to all people, not just citizens, on U.S. soil and that includes the soil beneath the customs hall.

    Were that not the case, we'd have little need for N379P.

  18. I can't power up the laptop ... by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the first TSA guy took the battery. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/28/1944208

  19. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    His point is technically correct in the sense that TSA does not believe in privacy even on domestic flights. Have you had a TSA note left in your suitcase letting you know that your bags were searched without your permission, without a warrant, without your supervision, and mostly certainly not in a discrete manner during domestic travel? I have.

    Of course, I am sure it is legal because somewhere, buried in the 4 pt. text, is a clause stating that you implicitly consent to your bags being searched simply because you bought a plane ticket. Much like holding a Florida driver's license means you implicitly consent to a sobriety test at any time. I am sure it will not be long before they are searching domestic travelers' hard drives. After all, Oklahoma City was domestic terrorism. Terror is everywhere.

    The cool thing is, though, you can encrypt your hard drive. You cannot encrypt your suitcase. And, like another poster said, you can always store your sensitive data on an iPod, a thumb drive, etc. That is the major problem with organizations like TSA and Customs that people do not seem to understand. They are always fighting a losing battle against people that are way ahead of them.

    --
    IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
  20. Re:What are they looking for? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Better yet, if you need to keep them from snooping around on it, just unhook the mobo from the PSU.

    So let me get this straight.

    Your suggestion is to go through security in an airport with a laptop which has been intentionally sabotaged such that it cannot be turned on without a screwdriver.

    So when they say "Can you switch this on please, sir", you're going to have to either refuse or ask for a screwdriver (because I strongly doubt you'll be allowed to carry one).

    That sounds like an extremely good way to have your laptop confiscated and destroyed in a controlled explosion, and for you to spend some years in prison.

  21. Re:well said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I sure get tired of the fools who think international borders should be treated as carelessly as the border between Nevada and California.

    OK, so it would appear that the point you are trying to make in your comment is that international borders are different than state borders.

    Let's see if you actually support your point.

    I can only think they've lived so long in a world that seems totally harmless, like trust-fund babies who've never left the crime-free gated community, that they now naively think there's just no more evil left in the world.

    Well, it's not really clear that this has anything to do with the difference between international borders and state borders.

    You seem to be making two points. First, that the world is a dangerous place and, second, that placing borders around individual neighborhoods is effective at preventing crime.

    If anything, the safety of gated communities would argue for more control of local borders (that is, state borders as opposed to international borders).

    So they can't see all this fuss about actually, you know, making sure that folks coming into the country are not up to seriously bad things.

    You're not exactly a model of clarity here but your implied point seems to be that people cross international borders in order to do bad things but that people somehow don't cross state borders to do bad things - so international borders needed to be protected but state borders don't need to be protected.

    Broadly, this seems to be an absurd claim to make. Obviously, people who are destined to do bad things cross all kinds of borders - neighborhood, city, state, international, etc. There's no fundamental reason to think that protecting one kind of border is going to be any more effective that protecting another kind of border. In fact, earlier in your post you seemed to be arguing for the effectiveness of neighborhood borders.

    They remind me a bit of the similar folks who fuss about the dangers of vaccines or chlorine in the water supply, because they've lived in a world with powerful antibiotics so long they no longer really believe that deadly bacteria exist and can kill you dead without some basic precautions at the similar "border" between one's body and the outside world.

    OK, so now you seem to be saying that a person's skin is the border that matters?

    Hmm, now that I think about it, you don't seem to be saying that one kind of border is more important than another kind of border - you just love borders in general. If it were up to you, you'd probably have borders around absolutely everything: neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, even the kitchen sink.

    I don't whether you live in the USA but, if you do, you might want to look into this thing called individual freedom. It was actually one of the founding principles of the USA. Of course, you'll probably realize that, in your own view, this freedom thing is just really bad mojo. In that case, may I recommend moving to somewhere like North Korea or Iran? You may find that their attitudes toward freedom are much more in line with your own.

  22. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gonzales is **NOT** the law. Only the law decides that, not Gonzales.

    Oh, we all know that.

    However, that hasn't stopped Bush et al from doing things which are illegal but that they have a legal opinion that it is legal. The distinction is, in practice, apparently irrelevant in terms of what the White House does.

    I mean ... suspension of Habeus Corpus; saying that White House staff doesn't need to respond to a congressional subpoena due to "executive privilege"; sending Whitehouse e-mail from Republican Party e-mail addresses; kidnapping foreign nationals in foreign countries; extra-ordinary renditions (ie torture) to a third country; performing warrantless wiretaps and then shielding the phone companies who helped you do it from court cases ... all of these things are illegal and haven't been decided upon by 'the law'. It hasn't stopped it from happening. Let's face it, Congress isn't holding them to account for doing it. The law sure isn't coming along to set them right.

    There's all sorts of things the administration is doing that are based off their opinion that what they're doing is legal. To date, the actual legality of any of this stuff hasn't been established, nor has that stopped them.

    Bush seems to believe that whatever he decides to do under his powers as a "war time president" is fully covered by executive privilege and that nobody has recourse to stop him. What's your law doing about that? From outside, I'd say not a damned thing.

    Cheers
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. Re:SmartCard by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is possible to encrypt the contents of the hard drive using a SmartCard, then mail the SmartCard to your destination in advance of your border crossing. By doing so, it would be absolutely impossible* for you to give them access to your data. And while they may have the legal authority to search your laptop at the border, they do NOT have the authority to break in to your destination address and take the SmartCard (without probable cause, warrant, etc.).


    No. But if I'm understanding some other posters here, they DO have the authority to simply keep your laptop. That seems to be the problem with most of these "solutions": no, the Feds don't get to see your data. But you're out maybe $1500 worth of laptop that you'll never see again.

    Chris Mattern
  24. Idiotic? Try this... by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Molesting a child is a harmful act. So is molesting and adult.

    Images of child molestation are not child molestation. Looking at an image of child molestation no more makes one a molester than does watching bank robbery footage make one a bank robber.

    And pedophilia may be real, but its no more "dangerous" than homosexuality or heterosexuality. We all have feelings every day it would be bad to act upon - most of us are rational enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. Assuming all "pedophiles" (which, in this society, would mean pretty much any male who has ever looked at a 15 year old and thought "wow that's hot") are simply out of control, irrational animals unable to control their actions is the very height of idiocy.

  25. 4th Ammedment is fine... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable [emphasis mine -mi] searches and seizures

    Kinda vague, is not it? What's reasonable? Up to the courts, really...

    And the courts have determined, that such "administrative searches" are Ok "as long as they are "conducted as part of a scheme that has as its purpose something "other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions."

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  26. I got one word.. by dementedWabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Guantanamo. Where the rights of the world are pissed on en-masse. Nothing to see here folks..

  27. Slavery by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

    Yet, they decided slaves weren't people. Nope, not hypocritical at all.