Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Laptops Can Be Searched At the Border

Posted by kdawson on from the don't-need-no-stinkin'-suspicion dept.

Nothing to Declare notes that a California appeals court has unanimously upheld a ruling that border security officers at international airports can search personal computers without requiring any specific evidence of criminal activity. The appeal was made by US resident Michael Timothy Arnold, charged with child pornography offenses after an airport search of his notebook PC in 2005. Might want to think hard about what's on your laptop if you're going to be passing through a US international airport.

12 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. I Wonder by OS24Ever · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It makes you wonder that if there hadn't been something like Child Porn on there if this would have been overruled.

    If it'd been a violation of rights search where they searched and you sued just for that with no criminal conviction.

    The sad part, is this sets a president if it is allowed to stand, and whittles away at everything else.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:I Wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't carry drugs or bombs on a hard disk.

    2. Re:I Wonder by vortechs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting - nobody ever drops a laptop while on a business trip and brings it back with them to get it repaired in the States? That's certainly what I would have done...

    3. Re:I Wonder by rmccann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can make a horror film without killing someone. In order to make a child porno film, you have to sexually abuse a child.

    4. Re:I Wonder by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can make a horror film without killing someone. In order to make a child porno film, you have to sexually abuse a child. Wrong! And I smell hypocrisy here; you are implying that the movie with violence can be simulated and the one with sex cannot. Also, I can only presume you are equating sex with "abuse" (I use quotes here because it is a vague word that is used only for political reasons. The very use of the word itself is a Troll).

      So right now in Ontario, Canada the award winning film the Tin Drum was recently classified as "child pornography" (a film I happened to have watched (legally) on Canadian television when I was a child). This is an example of morality being adopted into law. If I was to impose my own morals on people then parents who expose their children to religion would be put in jail for their perversions. It's lucky for those parents that I neither have the power or hypocrisy to do this.
    5. Re:I Wonder by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By making child porn illegal, you reduce the demand for it and thus reduce the supply as well.

      That concept worked really well during Prohibition, didn't it?

    6. Re:I Wonder by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As others have already pointed out, that is not true.

      Furthermore, all "child pornography" (whatever the definition) is "illegal". In some places that definition includes fantasies such as hand drawn cartoons and stories.

      Also, while on the subject of "child pornography", what is it exactly? When does a subject cease to be a "child" and become an "adult"? Most countries use a self-contradictory, hypocritical and obviously (to any thinking person) bogus scheme: one day you are a feeble-minded minor who is to be protected from evils of tobacco, alcohol and sex and just about a millisecond later (at the stroke of a clock on your birthday) you are a full-fledged, strong-willed, responsible "adult" who can participate in a televised orgy while boozed out of his/her mind. Logical, no?

      Not to mention that in many countries you are old enough to serve in the army, go slaughter other people, witness unspeakable horrors of war and be subjected to them ... and yet you are not old enough to bang someone 5 years older then you. Say nothing of alcohol.

      "Hypocrisy" is a word too weak for this nonsense, which most people accept without blinking or giving a second thought about it.

      "Think of the children!" was always a rallying cry of every description of scoundrel and authoritarian since times immemorial.

      In my view the problem of child abuse is far more complicated then this simplistic bureaucratic idiocy is trying to make it out to be and it revolves around a definition of consent and an ability to consent. But that is a whole other discussion. Pictures and other forms of information have very little to do with any of this, other then to serve as a focus of wrath of various power-hungry political charlatans and authoritarians (many of whom are secretly collecting the very pictures).

  2. 4th Amendment... by Delwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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. " I can see them checking your person before getting on a plane to make sure you're not carrying weapons... but what on your laptop could possibly endanger an airplane?

    1. Re:4th Amendment... by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't have a 4th Amendment right to cross the US border.

      As a condition of allowing you to cross the border, you are subject to search. It is as simple as that.

      All governments have always rightfully had the power to control traffic across their borders.

    2. Re:4th Amendment... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about going through international customs at any major airport. You go through US customs after you've already landed. The point is to control smuggling of goods into the US, not to protect airplanes.
      I agree, but that reasoning only works for physical goods. If I'm trying to smuggle cocaine into the U.S., then yeah searching me at the border could stop me. But we're talking about data - ones and zeros. If I'm trying to smuggle it into the U.S., I don't need to carry it on my laptop, I could just email it to someone already in the U.S. Or leave it on a server outside the U.S., enter the U.S., open an SSH tunnel to the server, and ftp the files over.
  3. Re:Time to think by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny though, our stature in the world seems to be declining along with our freedom. Eventually we'll have none of either left, and the world will continue without us.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I imagine there's some thinly-parsed definition about whether or not you're officially on US soil when you're entering Customs and, therefore, whether the Fifth Amendment could be said to apply.

    Heck, Gonzales once issued a statement once saying that people who haven't cleared customs technically are neither in nor out of the US, and therefore have no actual rights (can't dredge up a reference now). He's certainly said that habeus corpus isn't actually a right.

    Basically, for a while at least, the legal opinion was that you could be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained without recourse. You're so far removed from the 5th Amendment at that point, it's not funny!!

    Unless things change, you have shockingly few rights at the border -- at least until a court clarifies things.

    Cheers
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.