ACLU Sues For Records On Border Laptop Searches

TechPolitik writes "The ACLU has sued the US Customs and Border Protection agency under the Freedom of Information Act, aiming to obtain records on the agency's policy of searching laptops at the border. Under the policy, the CBP can search through financial records, photos, and Web site histories, and retain that information for unspecified periods of time. The ACLU is arguing that the information is necessary to understand whether the CBP may be violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable and unwarranted searches. The agency has so far not responded to requests for comment."

Comments

It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

Yes, it's a fourth amendment violation.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[magarity]

Congrats - you're the first (of many) posts by people who have not read the entire Constitution. UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant, not ALL searches. It's up to the courts to determine after the fact whether someone's rights were violated with an unreasonable warrantless search, not slashdot armchair lawyers. Write to your congresscritters to let them know you think it is unreasonable so they can put pressure on the executive branch to not do the search in the first place.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

There is one phrase there that might of interest - "unreasonable searches and seizures". And there hangs the ACLU's case. Are these searches "unreasonable"?

In my opinion, they probably are.

But a good lawyer can make a lot of mileage out of one key word, and "unreasonable" will probably be the word more argued over in this lawsuit.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant,

They're not showing any probable cause, either. Routine searches with no grounds for suspicion are unreasonable, QED.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[digitalunity]

ACLU's kind of taking a weird angle at it, but I fully support their cause.

The retention period of the data is irrelevant, in my opinion. The fact that they deem fit to search laptops or other electronic devices at all without probable cause, let alone a warrant, and considering the highly private nature of most peoples electronic devices, seems obviously contrary to the intentions of the 4th amendment.

Physical searches to board airplanes, regardless of destination seem very reasonable given the public endangerment risk from terrorism like sabotage, bombs, hijacking, etc. Beyond addressing physical security risks, other types of searches should not be conducted without a warrant. If they deem someone a risk, they can detain them and obtain a warrant. If it's not worth the effort to obtain a warrant, then the search isn't justified.

Simple as that.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the phrase of interest is "probable cause". Is crossing the boarder probable cause for having illegal data?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[belmolis]

The OP may be well aware of the fact that only "unreasonable" warrantless searches are forbidden by the 4th amendment. He neither states nor implies that all warrantless searches are illegal. It's quite possible that he has reached his conclusion that these searches are illegal because he believes them to be unreasonable. I think you're the one making assumptions.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

have not read the entire Constitution

As it happens, I've not only read it, I re-read it periodically, and i'm also familiar with the debates that surrounded its ratification. This kind of routine violation of privacy was among the reasons that we overthrew our king, and was a major issue that impeded ratification of the constitution before the bill of rights was drafted.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[zippthorne]

Now, let's be clear here, I'm surprised that the ACLU is getting involved in this, it being a genuine civil rights issue and all, but the fourth amendment does not say what you think it does.

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'm not sure what the underlying right this thing is supposed to affirm, but the writers seem to have left themselves some wiggle room in key phrases like, "unreasonable searches." Why did they specify "unreasonable" searches as prohibited and not just "searches." without qualifier? The tenth amendment would seem to apply at least, but when have we ever seen the government actually obey the tenth?

The logical conclusion is that warrants are not required in all circumstances, and national borders would seem to be an appropriate location for some amount of searching (for contraband, at least). As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[magarity]

He neither states nor implies that all warrantless searches are illegal
 
He states it directly - read the message title straight through to the text: "It's a search without a warrant. Yes, it's a fourth amendment violation." He makes no mention of thinking it unreasonable and by leaving the word "unreasonable" out he implies he thinks the Constitution protects all searches unless there is a warrant. If he knows better, he can feel free to clarify his position in a new post. If you read his journal you'll see he comes across as a Libertarian so it's proabably an amazing day he'd support the ACLU's position. Although against my inclinations as well, I must agree with the ACLU that it's an unreasonable search. So in this case the original posting probably is a case of forgetting the word "unreasonable". Still, there are going to be plenty of people who read it who interpret it to mean that all searches need a warrant. Look at all the people who screamed about the wiretaps between US based phone numbers and phone numbers of terror suspects overseas as being unreasonable searches that need warrants.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[belmolis]

As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.

Actually, some data is prohibited, e.g. child pornography. In any case, the claim is that they are looking for evidence that the owner of the laptop is a terrorist. The documents that constitute such evidence might well not be prohibited entry, but they would be useful in determining whether or not to admit the bearer. It's just like examining someone's papers. There's nothing illegal about bringing identification papers into the US, but if someone claims to be a tourist and turns out to have papers that identify him as, say, a member of an Iranian intelligence agency, that would bear on whether or not to admit him to the US.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[stephanruby]

Also, don't forget this tidbit: "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Searching the hard drive is one thing. Imaging the entire hard drive, and keeping that image on file for an undetermined period of time, is another thing entirely.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[CRC'99]

The fun part is - that as a non-US citizen, I look at something like this and think "What the hell is the US Government wanting to know what people have on their computer as they visit the US?".

What happened to the whole idea of freedoms and liberty for all that every US history class tells you America was founded on?

The more I hear about this kind of thing happening, the less I want to visit the US and chance of me doing business with American businesses gets lower and lower.

It seems to this foreigner that the US government needs to be told to pull it's fucking head in and act like a government - not the Gestapo.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Archangel Michael]

People get hung up on "unreasonable" of the phrase quoted above ...

The problem is, we forget the PURPOSE which is defined by

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

How secure are the rights of the people if simply crossing a border causes a violation of the 4th amendment's purpose?

Sorry, but as the Federal Government of the US continues to erode all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of "security" (border searches), "welfare" (Universal HealthCare), "protection" (Gun Control), and neither of the two big parties really fighting for these rights, I'm left wondering what's next?

Oh right, totalitarianism under the rule of the Chinese (who own the US). Guess what folks, the (R) and (D) are killing us slowly, and most Americans don't care because they see one side or the other as "good" when in reality they are both evil.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[belmolis]

Sorry but his subject header together with the single sentence of the post still do not claim that all warrantless searches are illegal.

What he writes in his journal doesn't really bear on his post. The point is not figuring out what his reasoning process may have been, it's whether what he states in his post is ignorant or illogical. And its not unreasonable to treat warrantless searches as by default illegal since that is a pretty good approximation to the Supreme Court's position. Within the US, there has to be either no expectation of privacy or exigent circumstances for a warrantless search to be permissible. There is somewhat more leeway at the border but when you're getting into searches of material for which there is a significant expectation of privacy and on the other hand only a very limited relevance to the lawful purposes of border inspection, the bias against warrantless searches is appropriate.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Atlantis-Rising]

It has always been my understanding that the Supreme Court has determined that the border is where the powers of the executive to order searches has been at its zenith.

More precisely, warrants are not required at the border.

So, within that confluence of factors, the searches were probably quite legally acceptable.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Architect_sasyr]

But... aren't the laptops already across the border when they are searched? The border is a very very thin line, so either these searches are being conducted in (say), Mexico without the Mexican Governments permission, or they are being conducted inside the US. At which point has it been defined that the US border is a fuzzy line a mile wide - and why are Mexican "illegals" not permitted to step foot within this fuzzy line when apparently the laws they are trying to get to are permitted to get bent there.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Kral_Blbec]

If it just said searches then any police investigation would be almost impossible. The implication is that awarrant is given after review that a certain search is reasonable. Now days, some have a flat reasonable status (cop sees a bloody trail in the park leading to a car trunk). The visible evidence makes it justifiable, even without a judges warrant.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[0123456]

got some news from you the socialist EU is 1000x worse

That's odd: I work in a company where employees can be sent all over the world with laptops, and the only country where we've received specific instructions on the carriage of sensitive information while crossing the border is America.

It's possible that you're correct and the EUSSR is actually 1000x worse, but from foreign companies' standpoints travel to America is becoming a serious liability; your policies are going to harm your economy far more than EVIL LAPTOP TERRORISTS ever will.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, within that confluence of factors, the searches were probably quite legally acceptable.

Indeed, the term "reasonable," as it has been permuted by the lawyers through the centuries, no longer bears much resemblance to how a reasonable man would use it.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TubeSteak]

They're not showing any probable cause, either. Routine searches with no grounds for suspicion are unreasonable, QED.

My understanding is that Customs doesn't need any suspicion to search anything crossing the border.
They can even open any in/outbound international mail.
Can you provide any citations that say Customs is not allowed to search [anything] at the border?

I believe the limit is that they are not allowed to conduct invasive procedures (shoving a finger up your ass, exploratory surgery) without a warrant.
Oh, and diplomats.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Shakrai]

But... aren't the laptops already across the border when they are searched? The border is a very very thin line

For better or worse the legal system assumes that you haven't actually crossed the border until you clear customs/immigration. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point to having those functions at international airports wholly contained within the United States.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[GumphMaster]

Not once have I had to surrender my fingerprint(s) to cross the border of an EU (or even non-US) nation.

Not once has my laptop hard disk been imaged and stored as I crossed the border of an EU country.

Not once has my employer outright banned carrying our work-a-day laptop on trips to EU countries. My last employer, a large US company subsidiary, even issued clean machines to people travelling to the US because (clearly) the corporation doesn't trust its own government officials. Of course, all our files were still available on the global corporate network, which made a joke of the border controls anyway.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Shakrai]

It seems to this foreigner that the US government needs to be told to pull it's fucking head in and act like a government - not the Gestapo.

Yes, because searching your laptop at the border is exactly the same as rounding up minorities and sending them to death camps. It's exactly the same as hanging enemies of the state with piano wire after "convictions" obtained in a kangaroo court. The United States Department of Homeland Security also operates without any form of judicial or legislative oversight and is answerable only to President Obama.

You raised good points in the rest of your post but this last comparison of yours is utterly absurd.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Moryath]

But... aren't the laptops already across the border when they are searched?

Perhaps, but the US government has the authority (and exercises it) to establish "processing zones" for the examination of people and goods being transported/imported to the US before releasing them to move freely within said borders.

Otherwise, according to your rather tortured and fuzzy "logic", we'd have to locate airports at the precise border of the US and disallow any international flights except for those which land there. But since that makes little sense on the face of pure logistics, we instead establish the security system such that the plane touches down, and then passengers/cargo are inspected before being released from the confines of the airport itself.

This goes the same for the inspection of ships at a port as well, for example. The "border" of the US may have been crossed at the line of the territorial waters, but the ship and cargo may be inspected at any time by the authority of the US as delegated to the port authority or other law enforcement agencies.

and why are Mexican "illegals" not permitted

I see you are trying to troll and get a rise out of someone here, as well as exposing your rather pointless agenda. Please grow up.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[aynoknman]

IANAL, but IAACWSTDHSTTATTTUSA*

My understanding is that any attempt to board a plane or cross a border, implies consent, which makes the searches consensual. If you don't want to be searched, don't try to get on the plane or enter or leave the country.

*I am a Canadian who since the Department of Homeland Security, tries to avoid traveling to the USA.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[dbet]

The fun part is - that as a non-US citizen, I look at something like this and think "What the hell is the US Government wanting to know what people have on their computer as they visit the US?"

They don't want to know what's on your laptop - not really. There's 3 factors here. First, they enjoy intimidating people. It makes them feel important. Not because they're assholes, but because they're human. Part of the reason for the bill of rights is to protect us from ourselves. We are all capable of terrible things.

Second, on the off chance they get lucky and find some questionable porn, raises all around.

Third, they probably honestly believe they're protecting the border by making sure you didn't store your terrorist plans in a folder called "terrorist plans" right on your desktop.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[mckinleyn]

You are an incoherent babbler. Please attempt to pay attention in your high school English course. Then perhaps we will be able to understand you and critique your logic instead.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Omestes]

While you may not of gotten a warning while traveling within the EU, I'm very sure they also look through your computer which they have no real right to do at all. Unless the FBI or Interpol has you on a known terror list, or pervert list there is no reason they (the EU, or my government the USA) has the right to know my private life. I fully agree with you, our policies are going to be be our undoing, it is sad really. I miss the Clinton era...

I was going to give a running tally of the errors, misspellings, and typos... But I gave up. Here is a free tip, in a fully text based medium, people judge you by your ability to type out a well formed thought/sentence. If you're too lazy to write it well, then your probably too lazy to bother with complex thoughts, or justified opinions.

Also, Clinton was also a wanker, and didn't do much for privacy rights, or rights in general.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Shakrai]

Oh right, totalitarianism under the rule of the Chinese (who own the US)

Please stop repeating this myth. China doesn't "own" the US. It doesn't even own a majority or even a quarter of the outstanding US debt. Here is an interesting pie chart for your consideration. The data is a little out of date (I believe the Chinese have since surpassed the Japanese as the largest foreign creditor) but it shows that the overwhelming majority of the US debt is owned by the US Government itself.

This is what happens when the Government borrows money from the social security trust fund and other such accounting gimmicks. The second largest holder is American citizens and institutions. Foreign creditors account for the remainder, of which China doesn't even have a majority.

BTW, I agree with everything else you said.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Shakrai]

In any case, the claim is that they are looking for evidence that the owner of the laptop is a terrorist.

Ah yes, terrorism. The new boogieman that replaced drunk driving and child molesters. Wouldn't any halfway smart terrorist just buy a laptop here in the states and download whatever he needs through an encrypted connection to the terrorist data center back home in Dirkadirkastan?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Atlantis-Rising]

"Reasonable", like the term "Reasonable Man'', has a rather precise legal meaning these days. It still makes sense... if you accept that the point of the law is to narrow as much as possible the definition of any particular word.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

Can you provide any citations that say Customs is not allowed to search [anything] at the border?

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that a given power doesn't exist. it's up to the officers who wish to exercise that power to prove their legitimacy.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just the first step though...

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[lastgoodnickname]

100 miles is thin?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jhol13]

I re-read it periodically

Why?

I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today. We (Finns) have had several changes to constitution as we see the world change.

Every time I hear argument "it is against constitution" it does sound very, very much like a religious argument. Like now, going down to an interpretation of a single word on it, just like reading the bible. Sharia comes to mind (law based on some, sometimes strict, interpretation of the koran).

If you do relate it like to a religious writing I must apologise, I intend no offence.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

the overwhelming majority of the US debt is owned by the US Government itself.

You know, if any private organization replaced its pension funds with its own bonds, someone would be doing time for it.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[arbiter1]

If remember hearing right, they can confiscate your laptop for indefinite period of time.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

It's not a religious writing, it's a contract. It is the entirety of the legal basis for the power of our government. If we permit them to ignore it for convenience, then we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule of men, and history has shown us many times that an unlimited government is extremely dangerous.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[michaelhood]

Why?

I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today.

Too bad you're not American-born, you'd make a great modern president.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

...then you're probably too lazy to bother with complex thoughts, or justified opinions.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would much rather have people being rabid fundamentalists about the US Constitution than most of the 'real' religions in the world today.

The Constitution can (and has) changed over the years. It's not the 'same' document from 200 years ago, but mostly is. Most of the principles that were instilled into it are still relevant today, though there were things in the Constitution that the founding fathers probably never dreamed would happen (I'm pretty sure '90 years past the death of the author' as a copyright term would probably fall under their definition of 'unreasonably long'.).

The problem with changing the Constitution is that it takes a huge amount of effort and a large majority of the population needs to be behind it. This is a double-edged sword. It means that the Constitution doesn't just get changed on a 'whim' of the current political ideas, but it also means that there are some very good ideas that should probably be inserted into the Constitution that don't even get mentioned because of the general-public's apathy towards any political isn't that isn't religiously or emotionality charged.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[failedlogic]

What would be interesting to know is some figures on: # of searches, country of origin of the person (e.g. American citizen returning from vacation in England VS American Immigrant returning from vacation in England), gender - it would be real interesting to find out how many women or % of all female travelers have laptops searched.

Likewise, how many mega-millionaires, diplomats, US Politicans, Law enforcement or Judges have been searched? I'd be willing to bet if enough of them are searched laws will change real quick.

Who does the imaging of the drives? I'm asking in the sense of an even further reaching-question. Suppose someone working for a Secret or TS level clearance (these examples are piss poor but just to make the point: an aviation engineer or IRS employee) is coming back across the border. Worker brought their S or TS work with them on laptop encrypted etc. etc. overseas on a project/assignment. Guy looks a bit nervous/sweaty. Border people know he's a gov't employee but decide to him anyways. He "looks" suspicious.

Wouldn't the person imaging the hard drive get into a huge heap of trouble if they manage to access and keep the S or TS data especially if they don't have that level of clearance?

By extension, if the data isn't properly secured after imaging -especially if undetermined retention time- and your company's - data gets stolen. Couldn't there be a massive lawsuit as a result of the loss of the data - competitor could have it, etc?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[michaelhood]

They don't want to know what's on your laptop - not really. There's 3 factors here. First, they enjoy intimidating people. It makes them feel important. Not because they're assholes, but because they're human. Part of the reason for the bill of rights is to protect us from ourselves. We are all capable of terrible things.

There's so much wrong with that statement it's hard to pick a point so I can coherently counter your foolishness.

That said- I assure you that the founders of this country didn't believe we needed protecting from ourselves. That's an English thing.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TheModelEskimo]

>I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today.

I'd be interested to know which parts in particular you think are "hardly relevant."

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Shakrai]

Yeah, it's real cute how that works, isn't it?

BTW, I love your sig :)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[arminw]

... it's up to the officers who wish to exercise that power to prove their legitimacy....

BS. It is up to the courts, the Supreme Court specifically, to decide what power the officers are allowed to exercise under the Constitution. Apparently they have decided not to significantly limit the searching authority of customs and immigration officials that country's borders. Apparently, the usual protections against searches do not apply at border entry points.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[arminw]

...that it's an unreasonable search...

Honestly, if they are allowed to search all your luggage, why should they not be allowed to search through your laptop as well? Where does anybody here on /. get the idea that digital information is somehow privileged above real-world goods? If you have such super-secret information, why carry it on your laptop? Put it safely encrypted on a server either in the USA or elsewhere and then access it over a secure Internet connection. For crying out loud, is it really necessary to carry your entire pron collection across borders?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're too lazy to write it well, then your probably too lazy to bother with complex thoughts

I agree completely.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[tftp]

An AC already replied to your comment, but it's worth repeating - "you have to start somewhere", this rule applies to everyone, including tyrants and their secret police. Even the kind of police that you mentioned wasn't born overnight with full powers and with torture tools at the ready. Everything is sold to the public as a good, necessary thing, and then it is modified by further laws and events until it becomes something else entirely, and you are left wondering how could it happen.

In this particular case the practice of searching laptops (among others) is cementing the power of authorities. Far from being a limited government with enumerated functions, it assigns rights and responsibilities to itself exactly as you'd expect a career-obsessed bureaucrat to do. The more duties the careerist has the more irreplaceable and important he becomes, even if he fails at many of these duties. Same with governments. Once they have fingers on every button such as, fictionally, finances, industry, healthcare - on top of traditionally mandated ones like wars - it makes itself an essential part of the society and acquires nearly unrestricted power over your freedom and life. There is even a word for a society where the rulers exercise absolute power over population; it's called a dictatorship. The dictator doesn't have to be a single person, USSR and China amply proved that.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[arminw]

...on the other hand only a very limited relevance to the lawful purposes...

Do you really think there ought to be a difference if you have some illegal kiddie pron in printed form or stored electronically? Long before 911 came along, customs had the authority to search for any contraband physically in your luggage. Why should there be an exception suddenly, because such contraband may be carried electronically? I think this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[UncleTogie]

Put it safely encrypted on a server either in the USA or elsewhere and then access it over a secure Internet connection.

...and since anyone with any sense will be doing that anyway, how does searching the latop provide "better" security?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[michaelhood]

In any case, the claim is that they are looking for evidence that the owner of the laptop is a terrorist.

Ah yes, terrorism. The new boogieman that replaced drunk driving and child molesters. Wouldn't any halfway smart terrorist just buy a laptop here in the states and download whatever he needs through an encrypted connection to the terrorist data center back home in Dirkadirkastan?

That or he'd just walk across the hundreds (thousands?) of miles of unprotected border on both the northern and southern neighbors.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Runaway1956]

Reasonable is a relative thing. With a fear mongering government, ala George Orwelle or any of a variety of other authors, reasonable searches will include your dirty underwear.

In the United States, reasonable should mean, "If the officer has probable cause to believe you are an imminent threat, he may search on the spot. If the officer has probably cause to believe that you might be a threat at some more distant point in time, then he should request a WARRANT to search your belongings."

I hope that clears things up.

While I don't think that it's right, the government might get away with treating non-citizens in a manner that presumes guilt. They cannot justify doing so with citizens, while claiming to uphold the constitution of the United States.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Nefarious Wheel]

"This is the greatest assembly of minds this house has ever seen, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - John F. Kennedy, presiding over a dinner of Nobel laureates at the White House.

Unlike parliamentary governments, where "government is dissolved" on a regular basis, the US system has had a continuous seated government since the Constitution was ratified. It's based on that Constitution, which is fundamental to the operation of the US as a country and it's democratic mind set. It's perceived as a critical, unbreakable contract. Well, not unbreakable, as it contains within itself the means whereby it can be set aside. This would be painful, though, requiring a consensus among states (three-fifths isn't it?) that would be all but impossible to achieve today. I'm sure some science-fiction scenarios could challenge this, but the fact is The Constitution = American System of Government and even today, it's one hell of a well-structured document.

And I'm speaking as an Australian, so don't accuse me of patriotism. This is simple admiration for a well constructed successful bid for power.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Runaway1956]

"I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today."

I call bullshit. There is nothing in the constitution of the United States, or the amendments, that is irrelevant today. The amendment prohibiting the possession and consumption of alcohol is irrelevant, yes, BUT, there is a subsequent amendment repealing that amendment. It is a nice tidy document, which defines how government should be run. All other laws are supposed to fit within that guide.

That very relevant document is the litmus paper used to test all other laws in this nation.

It hasn't been necessary to change that constitution very many times, because the people who wrote it put a lot of work, and a lot of foresight into it.

I'll thank you not to declare my constitution as irrelevant. I rely on it for my freedoms of speech, my right to vote, my right to bear arms (yes, my PERSOANAL RIGHT to bear a firearm), my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That document is so relevant, that I am perfectly willing to go out and fight for it despite the fact that I'm an old bastard with sons in uniform.

Thank you, I'll step down off the ammo box now...... (an ammo box can be used for a soapbox or a ballot box, there's no need to keep three seperate boxes around)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[gnud]

Japan requires fingerpints.
Since visiting Japan, I can sleep safely knowing that every western spook archive now has my fingerprint on file.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Runaway1956]

Uhhhh, first point? Assholes are human. Ever met a non-human asshole? I mean without being abducted by aliens for perverse sexual experiments....

And, third. I store my terrorist plans embedded in my niece's "My little Pony" videos. I got that tip at Al Queda's "Advanced Terrorism in the Digital Age" class. (Oh-kay, maybe I lie - I can't even speak Arabic, so, no, I didn't take the course)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

BS. It is up to the courts, the Supreme Court specifically, to decide what power the officers are allowed to exercise under the Constitution

Yes, that's where the proof has to be shown.

Apparently, the usual protections against searches do not apply at border entry points.

That remains to be seen. Cases against the border patrol are pending.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Ihmhi]

But the Constitution was written by men. It's still the rule of men, it's just the rule of men from 300 years ago.

I do agree with what you're saying, though. It's something people should read more than a couple times in school and then forget about it. Such a sad state we're in these days...

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[nicolas.kassis]

Interesting, I will now look on ebay for an old ammo box.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Ihmhi]

IANA Constitutional L, but I think the Seventeenth Amendement quite possibly did some of the worst damage ever to our political system.

For the uninformed or for those too lazy to click the link, before the 17th amendment was ratified in 1912 Senators were appointed by the state legislature instead of elected directly by the people.

If a Senator stepped out of line with what the people wanted, they could bitch to the state legislature and the state legislature (which is easier to control by the people than the federal legislature) could go as far as recalling a Senator if need be.

Because of the way things are now, once a Senator is elected there's nothing we can really do to influence them much aside from trying to get a recall vote (which is very difficult), "contributing to their campaign fund", or them getting caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TubeSteak]

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that a given power doesn't exist. it's up to the officers who wish to exercise that power to prove their legitimacy.

Now you're just being obstinate without replying to what I've said.

I'll break it down for you:
1. The Constitution gives Congress the duty to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare"
2. The Congress granted authority to Customs to conduct routine searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant
3. Customs has been searching and seizing ever since.

The last two big cases were US v Flores-Montano and US v Arnold. In both cases, the border search exception was upheld, as the routine search was not invasive and did not violate the individual's dignity.

In US v Flores-Montano, SCOTUS references an earlier case:

The same Congress that passed the Fourth Amendment
explicitly permitted customs officials to board
ships and vessels "for the purposes * * * of examining
and searching" the ships and vessels and to "examine
the cargo or contents" of those conveyances as they
entered this country.

Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, 30,
31, 1 Stat. 164; see 29, 1 Stat. 164 (permitting customs
officials to "examine[]" unloaded parcels and packages
containing dutiable items). This Court has recognized
that the Nation's earliest laws authorized "the examination
of ships and vessels, and persons found therein,
for the purpose of finding goods prohibited to be imported
or exported, or on which the duties were not
paid," and "[t]he search for and seizure of * * * goods
liable to duties and concealed to avoid the payment
thereof." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 623
(1886); accord Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 505
(1927) (explaining that customs officials had power to
"board and search vessels bound to the United States
and to inspect their manifests, examine their cargoes,
and prevent any unlading while they were coming in");
U.S. Br. 21. Those laws imposed no requirement of
suspicion in order to search. Indeed, Congress in 1799
confirmed that customs officials had the power, "whenever"
they "shall think proper," to search the baggage
of international travelers. Act of Mar. 2, 1799, ch. 22,
  46, 1 Stat. 662.2

Is 210 years worth of precedent not good enough?

I have more than fulfilled my burden, now it is upon you to support your position.
I ask again: Can you provide any citations that say Customs is not allowed to search anything at the border?
/With the understanding that searches of a person's body are by definition not routine and are have a higher burden.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[decoy256]

The SCOTUS can suck my balls... it's still unreasonable.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Ian Alexander]

It's a well-established legal principle that your constitutional rights don't really apply at the border. Inside the border, of course you have rights. But at the border they can pretty much search whatever they want. If they feel like tearing apart your vehicle, piece by piece, just on the offchance you might have hidden contraband, that's legal, and there's no requirement that they compensate you in any way or put it back together. If they can do that then I figure they probably have the right to poke around your hard drive.

And, as has obviously already been mentioned, not all searches require warrants. Terry stops. "probable cause" searches of, say, a vehicle. Exigent circumstances.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCROTUS can suck my balls... it's still unreasonable.

FTFY.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Jarjarthejedi]

You have no idea what Rule of Men means do you? Rule of Law is when something is written down as law, immutable (to a certain degree) and applying to everyone. Rule of Men is where the only law is whatever someone says today, and it can change tomorrow.

The Constitution is Rule of Law for the simple reason that if the president (for example) wanted to arrest someone for the crime of having a certain video game he can't do it, because it's not a legal thing to arrest someone for. Under Rule of Men that's entirely possible assuming the President determines the law.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[mce]

My 0.02$, living in the EU and having travelled to the former USSR: no laptop searches and no taking of fingerprints.

And yes, in my company we've also been told to take only clean laptops in/out of the US and how to have our data at hand nonetheless.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Ian Alexander]

As it happens, I've not only read it, I re-read it periodically, and i'm also familiar with the debates that surrounded its ratification.

Are you also familiar with the case-law and legal interpretation that have built up over the centuries?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of a contract that can bind people who haven't signed it.

Let's face the facts: The Government may be bound by the Constitution, but it says whatever the hell they say it says. Even if these searches are deemed unreasonable, they'll just get a retroactive warrant or some bullshit like that.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[hairyfeet]

But doesn't homeland security get a 100 mile "constitutional free zone" from the border? IIRC they can pretty much do what the want in that buffer zone in the name of "fighting terrorism". It also kinda screws you if you live or work in Florida, since it means that state pretty much is an entire constitution free zone as far as HS is concerned.

BTW here is the link. Pretty fucking scary if you ask me that some suit can just decide the "constitution don't count" if you are too close to an imaginary line. There shouldn't be ANY reason why the constitution shouldn't count for a US citizen on US soil.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[magarity]

As it happens, I've not only read it, I re-read it periodically, and i'm also familiar with the debates
 
I could tell that after I read your journal entries, but not after just reading the original post. No offense meant when I picked out the lack of the Constitution's 'unreasonable' which I've seen so many people ignore when complaining about warrantless searches with which they disagree.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the whole idea of freedoms and liberty for all that every US history class tells you America was founded on?

USA was not founded on freedoms and liberty for all. It was founded on greed. Some filthy rich dudes didn't want to pay taxes, customs and do other civil duties.They also thought they may have to release slaves and give them land to live on and give back land to Indians (it was popular opinions in Britain at the time, but not among most white people in US). They saw that the British Empire was weakened by its constant waring and they took the opportunity. All that other rhetoric fluff was just added to motivate other (poor) people to do the fighting and dying for them.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not for me or anyone else to prove that a given power doesn't exist. it's up to the officers who wish to exercise that power to prove their legitimacy.

This sentence is beautiful.

Sadly, those officers will just stay silent until someone speaks up about their illegitimacy.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite get why you think it would be all that different. Before the amendment, was it not true that for state legislatures, once members were elected, there's nothing we can really do to influence them much aside from trying to get a recall vote (which is very difficult), "contributing to their campaign fund", or them getting caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar? And they elected the Senate.

It seems to have removed a layer of indirection that made it harder, not easier, to get rid of them.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Omestes]

Bleh... Isn't there an internet law that basically says; "when correcting someones grammar, you will inevitably make a stupid mistake in your own grammar"?

If not, there should be.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[agnosticnixie]

That would also basically screw most of the population of the north east and the west if it's also from the coastlines

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[twostix]

Finlands government collabarated with the Nazis and handed over hundreds of its Jewish citizens to the Gestapo in order to curry favour with the Nazi government in the face of war with Russia.

I bet those hundreds of Finnish Jews wished Finland had a little less of a "flexible" rule of law and a US or British style Bill of Rights and Constitution when their lives were being used as political currency by the ever enlightened Finnish government..

Oh well, maybe next time your enlightened government will "interpret" the law for a better outcome for *all* of its people...

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Jerry Smith]

I would much rather have people being rabid fundamentalists about the US Constitution than most of the 'real' religions in the world today.

The Constitution can (and has) changed over the years. It's not the 'same' document from 200 years ago, but mostly is. Most of the principles that were instilled into it are still relevant today, though there were things in the Constitution that the founding fathers probably never dreamed would happen (I'm pretty sure '90 years past the death of the author' as a copyright term would probably fall under their definition of 'unreasonably long'.).

The problem with changing the Constitution is that it takes a huge amount of effort and a large majority of the population needs to be behind it. This is a double-edged sword. It means that the Constitution doesn't just get changed on a 'whim' of the current political ideas, but it also means that there are some very good ideas that should probably be inserted into the Constitution that don't even get mentioned because of the general-public's apathy towards any political isn't that isn't religiously or emotionality charged.

Concluding that:

• most of the people agree with the constitution
• most of the people agree with what they think what is in the constitution
• most of the people do not care
• most of the people do not know how to change the constitution

Our government is shite as well (religious coorporate right) but at least it's the government that we deserve, by election. I guess the same goes for the constitution: it is as it is, because people somehow want it to be that way.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[techno-vampire]

Every time I hear argument "it is against constitution" it does sound very, very much like a religious argument.

I don't know how things go in Finland, but here in America, our Constitution is the highest law of the land. It was established very soon after it was ratified that if a law is found by the courts to violate the Constitution or contradict it, that law is null and void, and is removed from the books. When it comes to law, this gives the Constitution the same force that the Bible has in Christianity.

The first ten amendments are called The Bill Of Rights, because they consist, for the most part, of a listing of civil rights possessed by all citizens. We take those rights very seriously, and regard any attempt to erode them with suspicion. (If you're wondering why there's so much controversy about gun control here, consider that the Right To Bear Arms is written into The Bill Of Rights, and read again what I wrote above.) And last, when you take into consideration that one of the main reasons we broke loose from England is that we believed that our rights were being violated ("No taxation without representation" had long been a prinicple of English Law, and the colonists felt that it should apply to them as well as the people back home.) you will understand just why we've always guarded our rights so fiercely.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Planning on committing a crime? No? So who cares if your fingerprints are on file.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[koiransuklaa]

Would you have a link for that? As far as I know Finnish jews had full civil rights throughout the war (even if there was considerable pressure from Germany) and no Finnish jews were turned over to the Nazis. As far as I know, the biggest ruckus has been about deporting eight Austrian jew refugees. This was acknowledged and apologized by the prime minister only about ten years ago.

So... could you kindly provide some links about the hundreds of Finnish jews handed over to Gestapo?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Atario]

It seems you're ignoring the "PURPOSE" of the whole Constitution, which is defined by:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility[1], provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare[2], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[1] Not a lot of domestic tranquility follows when any idiot can brandish any powerful weapon he wants (thus, the liberty-crushing principles that grenades, fuel-air bombs, land mines, tanks, missiles, nukes, and certain high-output firearms should probably not be floating around the general public).

[2] I don't know about you, but most people's general Welfare pretty strongly hinges on having health care without worrying about becoming an indentured servant by taking it (thus, the socialist bogeyman of universal health care enjoyed by every other developed nation in the world (and some pretty undeveloped ones too)).

I'm having trouble finding any justification in there for border laptop searches, but of course I could be biased.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[avxo]

You are correct. The Courts have consistently held that there is a legitimate government interest in searching those who seek to enter the country and does not need a warrant to do so in most (although not all) cases. For example, in U.S. v. Ramsey (1977) the Supeme Court partially held that "[b]order searches without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless 'reasonable' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment" and that the "border search exception is not based on the doctrine of 'exigent circumstances,' but is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's general principle that a warrant be obtained." Other examples of this can be found in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, U.S. v. Ickes and U.S. v. Arnold.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Atario]

Ah yes, terrorism. The new boogieman that replaced drunk driving and child molesters.

Oh, believe me, they weren't replaced. Child molesters are for when you find others' sexuality uncomfortable and need to pass a law against it; drunk drivers are for being able to arrest anyone who drinks or drives (covers lots of cases, and magically allows you to set up police checkpoints wherever and whenever you want); and terrorists are for Dirty Foreign Brown People who have sneakily avoided the other two.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to define your acronym then don't use an acronym in the first place

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG I've been saying this for years Thank you!!!

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[avxo]

But... aren't the laptops already across the border when they are searched? The border is a very very thin line, so either these searches are being conducted in (say), Mexico without the Mexican Governments permission, or they are being conducted inside the US.

Moryath has already answered you in #29212217 and I will only add to that the following: This is what the Courts would call "sophistry" and similar cases hav been addressed before. See for example Almeida-Sanchez v. United States and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte .

While the Court has not given the government a carte blanche, it has shown deference to the government and its legitimate interest in patrolling the border, by ruling, for example that the CBP can, without running afoul of the 4th Amendment, establish checkpoints on public highways in the vicinity of the Mexican border, even if those checkpoints are not at the actual border.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[pjt33]

The cultural influences I received growing up conditioned me to see asking for my fingerprints as equivalent to saying that I'm a major suspect in a crime. Therefore routinely asking for fingerprints is worryingly close to "Guilty (we don't know of what, but we'll find something) until proven innocent" - which does indeed seem from an external point of view to be the basis on which US immigration works.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[avxo]

You ask for proof, so I'll briefly point out United States v. Montoya De Hernandez , United States v. Flores-Montano , United States v. Ramsey and of course the relatively recent cases of United States v. Arnold and United States v. Ickes. The judicial predecent is pretty firmly established: the government has a legitimate interest in knowing who is coming into the country and what is being brought in. As a result, the government has singificant leeway (but not a carte blanche) to conduct searches at the border without running afoul of 4th Amendment. Feel free to ignore all this, but the Courts don't.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[st0nes]

I understand why searches are made for contraband goods, but why the data on a laptop? It certainly isn't dutiable, so what is the reason given for searching it? Are you legally bound to provide passwords to encrypted data? You don't have to reveal data that you carry in your head, so why should you reveal data on a laptop? I am not an American, so I don't know what the constitutional or legal position is, but it seems to be a gross violation of privacy and a policy I would certainly strenuously object to if it were introduced in my own country.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

if you accept that the point of the law is to narrow as much as possible the definition of any particular word.

Lol. Seems like the point of the law is add just enough ambiguity to the meaning of words to keep lawyers employed.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah yeah feeding troll.

calling the eu socialist shows how much you know. What do you even care? Sounds like you've never even traveled at all.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

while you may not of gotten a warning while traveling within the EU im very sure they also look trough your computer..

What the hell are you talking about. Most of the countries don't even have a proper boarder anymore. Much less staff that give a crap about laptops or *anything* you are carrying. I have never had *anything* searched or checked coming into the EU from outside or while traveling withing the EU. You get a passport check at worst.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

BOOGA BOOGA socialism BOOGA BOOGA communist BOOGA BOOGA
BLALALALALA

(this is what you sound like, in case you're curious)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Constitution is there to protect and empower US citizens, not citizens of foreign countries.

They only have as many rights in the US as their governments can convince the US government to grant them (the foreign citizens that is). On the basis of 'fairness' foreign citizens are usually treated the same as US citizens when actually in the USA. there is no legal requirement for this however, it is done just to offset the potential, "You mess with our people, we'll mess with yours." response.

This is one of the reasons (of many) that the "Enemy Combatant" is not as legally protected as a "legal combatant" i.e. one who is authorised by a nation to conduct war upon another nation.

For the exact details of reciprocal treatment of citizens, such things are usually handled through the UN and the treaties thereof but I believe there are also individual specific treaties between the US and other nation states.

I hasten to add that I am not a trained international lawyer so please don't base a legal defense around these concepts if you are hoping to get the contents of your laptop back from the TSA.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jhylkema]

You fail. The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at the border, period, at least as far as searches are concerned.

As one defence lawyer I know put it, "you're fish in a barrel at the border."

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jhylkema]

Thank you for pointing this stuff out. The amount of legal illiteracy and shithouse lawyering on /. never ceases to amaze me.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[characterZer0]

You "try" to avoid traveling to the USA? You only do it when somebody kidnaps you and brings you in?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Tuoqui]

It has always been my understanding that the Supreme Court has determined that the border is where the powers of the executive to order searches has been at its zenith.

More precisely, warrants are not required at the border.

So, within that confluence of factors, the searches were probably quite legally acceptable.

Oh sure they have some pretty crazy powers at the borders. However, the main principle of UNREASONABLE remains. I mean we can assume it is reasonable to look inside people's bags, check them with a metal detector and such... But if we made it a prerequisite to leaving or entering the country to undergo a full body cavity search for EVERYONE... Well I'm pretty sure everyone (including the Supreme Court) would consider that unreasonable. Because to violate the body of someone you generally are required to have some just cause to pull them aside for extra screening and such.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[julie007]

...or them getting caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

Even that doesn't work all of the time...

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Chris Mattern]

a US or British style Bill of Rights and Constitution

The United Kingdom has neither a Bill of Rights nor a Constitution.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Chris Mattern]

They don't want to know what's on your laptop - not really. There's 3 factors here. First, they enjoy intimidating people. It makes them feel important. Not because they're assholes, but because they're human. Part of the reason for the bill of rights is to protect us from ourselves. We are all capable of terrible things.

There's so much wrong with that statement it's hard to pick a point so I can coherently counter your foolishness.

That said- I assure you that the founders of this country didn't believe we needed protecting from ourselves.

On the contrary, his statement is very, very correct. Start by Googling the Stanford prisoner experiment. Then you can go on to the Milgram experiment. It's not pleasant reading.

And the founders were extremely aware that we needed protection from ourselves. They regarded it as the primary problem in constructing a fair and stable government, in fact. As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[dargaud]

Actually, some data is prohibited, e.g. child pornography. In any case, the claim is that they are looking for evidence that the owner of the laptop is a terrorist. The documents that constitute such evidence might well not be prohibited entry, but they would be useful in determining whether or not to admit the bearer.

So when your plane stops over in some arabian hellhole on its way from Europe to Australia, you are perfectly OK with the idea of them looking for 'prohibited data' on your laptop, and since they will find some family pictures of uncovered women (or, god forbid, actual smut); and also perfectly OK with them detaining you at this point. Right ?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

This would not bother me, both coasts are full of loonys!

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with most of the population around the gulf of mexico, too

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[the_bard17]

No worries. Most of us understand the difference between mangling your grammar to the point of incoherency, and missing one simple (and fairly common) mistake.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[pipedwho]

My understanding is that any attempt to board a plane or cross a border, implies consent, which makes the searches consensual. If you don't want to be searched, don't try to get on the plane or enter or leave the country.

Under that reasoning nearly anything can be justified. It's the same kind of reasoning that an aggressor uses to justify a 'date rape'.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[zippthorne]

The Rio Grande is a muddy river. They'd be buried in the plane until you got them out.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TheMeuge]

[1] Not a lot of domestic tranquility follows when any idiot can brandish any powerful weapon he wants (thus, the liberty-crushing principles that grenades, fuel-air bombs, land mines, tanks, missiles, nukes, and certain high-output firearms should probably not be floating around the general public).

So in your eyes, "certain high output firearms (which inevitably means ALL firearms)" are equivalent to weapons of mass destruction. Have you every considered therapy?

[2] I don't know about you, but most people's general Welfare pretty strongly hinges on having health care without worrying about becoming an indentured servant by taking it (thus, the socialist bogeyman of universal health care enjoyed by every other developed nation in the world (and some pretty undeveloped ones too)).

So is that why they come to the U.S. to get their surgeries done, if they can afford it? Listen, our unbridled profits lead to the lion's share of world's medical advances... and it's not unrealistic to suppose that much of the capability of other countries to provide care for cheap hedges on the fact that one country is taking it for the team, by actually developing the things. Secondly, have you ever asked your mom: "But Bobby's mom let him do X, why can't I?" and gotten "I am not Bobby's mom" in response? Well, it's kind of like that. Not everything works everywhere.

But assuming you're right, and everything is applicable everywhere (tell that to the Russians and Iraqis) shouldn't you be telling the Swiss that the fact that they keep their M-16s (read: high-output firearms) at home after their military service is negatively affecting their domestic tranquility, low crime-rate and all?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Also, don't forget this tidbit: "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Searching the hard drive is one thing. Imaging the entire hard drive, and keeping that image on file for an undetermined period of time, is another thing entirely.

Quite so. If it qualifies as an unreasonable search. Otherwise, it doesn't necessarily require a warrant.

Not, mind you, that I think the Supremes will think it's a reasonable search. But I didn't think that Drunk Driving checkpoints were going to be approved either.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TheGratefulNet]

What happened to the whole idea of freedoms and liberty for all that every US history class tells you America was founded on?

when you grow older (like, when you leave junior high) you realize it was all a lie and that the US is not some wonderful disney movie where the good guys wear white hats, etc.

the US laws, like most other countries, are REALLY setup to control and push down the populace. laws are not there to make your life better; they're there for the power guys in control to keep them in control. these days, that also means keeping a nice bit of fear always going.

all this is RIGHT out of 1984. I read that as a child, some 40 years ago, and I'm seeing so much of that story come to life, its not even funny.

part of the problem is that those who are making the laws have often been above the law. given the class system (lawmakers, cops, lawyers, politicians and even TSA) - there is no way regular old joe citizen can preserve his privacy or civil rights in today's world (not just US but the whole world is catching onto this anti-freedom craze).

revolution. nothing else will fix it. sorry to say that but the system is beyond repair. we're watching it fully melt down in front of our eyes. I expect a revolution (or collapse) in the next 10-20 years, if it even takes that long.

until then, just keep your head low. (yeah, I ignore my own advice a lot, huh?)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, the advantage of the pre-17th Amendment method of selecting U.S. Senators was that the Senators then represented the interests of the state as a whole/the state government. As opposed to now where they are answerable to popular sentiment. The members of the state legislature are more likely than the general populace to understand the "unintended consequences"** of any given federal legislation than the general populace.


**I put the quotes around unintended consequences because with increasing frequency the consequences were intended, but nobody was supposed to notice until after the bill became law.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Congrats - you're the first (of many) posts by people who have not read the entire Constitution. UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant, not ALL searches. It's up to the courts to determine after the fact whether someone's rights were violated
>>>

False. If YOU read the Constitution you would know the courts are supposed to issue warrants BEFORE the search, not after (ex post facto). As for "reasonableness", is it reasonable to search people at the borders? I think so - it's the job of the U.S. to protect from foreign enemies entering domestic soil.

Is it reasonable to search me, my car, or my laptop if I'm on driving-down I-10 from California to Texas, and never crossed the border? Absolutely not. And yet they do it all the time. This needs to be stopped.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[zippthorne]

You know what? If you feel better on an airline that does physical searches, go right ahead. Me, I feel better about airlines that don't do that. The event that precipitated all this extra "security" can't happen again, no planeful of passengers will let it, now that we know the rules have changed.

So.. where's my search-free airline (or at least, limited to running the luggage through an explosives detector, since it's difficult to overpower a portmanteau in the cargo compartment that you don't even know about.) I'd even be willing to "suffer" through more frequent, more direct flights on smaller aircraft if that is the price for such an airline to be allowed to exist.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

Is it reasonable to search people at the borders? I think so - it's the job of the U.S. to protect from foreign enemies entering domestic soil. Is it reasonable to search me, my car, or my laptop if I'm driving down I-10 from California to Texas, or I=90 from Washington to Maine, enjoying my vacation, and never once crossed the border? Absolutely not. And yet they do it all the time. This needs to be stopped.

>>>establish checkpoints on public highways in the vicinity of the Mexican border, even if those checkpoints are not at the actual border.

Yes these checkpoints are allowed, but the U.S. Supreme Court has laid ground rules. They are not allowed to stop every car, nor are they allowed to search the cars they do stop, unless they first obtain a warrant. These checkpoints have been abused for awhile, with guards even yanking innocent citizens from their cars and beating them. LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMZUgmrJrk VICTIM TELLS HIS STORY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

This is why the American Founders revolted against the British Empire, and wrote a Constitution to protect individuals from these kinds of abuses. They were tired of having their individual human rights violated (soldiers quartered in private homes, taxation without representation, et cetera), and wanted to make sure their new government was restrained from doing the same.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite: to catch the "low-hanging fruit" of the dummy who carries his "kiddy-porn" on his laptop.. Thus EVERYbody gets reamed when they transport their electronics across a border... Any peddler of paedo with ANY sense is going to encrypt it..

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Attila Dimedici]

The logical conclusion is that warrants are not required in all circumstances, and national borders would seem to be an appropriate location for some amount of searching (for contraband, at least). As there is no prohibition on data entering the country, I'm at a loss as to why border agents would be interested in or have authority to search laptops beyond checking that they are, in fact, actually laptops.

Has anyone on here heard of a thing called a "diplomatic pouch"? If not, they are a briefcase or bag or other container that contains communications from home government to an embassy in another country. They are, by international treaty, exempt from border searches. Diplomatic pouches are not a concept that was developed in the U.S., as a matter of fact, it is a concept that was developed before the U.S. was a significant player in international affairs.
Now, why do diplomatic pouches exist? Because letters going across borders are subject to being opened and examined by the governments of many countries and it was felt that allowing a government to communicate with its embassy without the host government knowing the contents of the communication was desirable.
Therefore there is obviously a longstanding tradition of governments examining information crossing into their country. Laptops are merely a technological method of carrying information. There is nothing novel about searching laptops, it is in a tradition going back as long as modern diplomacy.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

More entertaining videos. None of these involve beatings, but you have to wonder, why is it necessary to harass citizens who have never crossed an international border??? And yes I know the response will be, "Just answer the questions," to which I respond with a 1940s German accent, "Yes just give-in to the jackbooted guy. Take your yellow star and sew it onto your clothes like a good citizen. Don't cause trouble and no trouble will come to you. (cough)"

http://www.youtube.com/user/checkpointusa

"The principal protection... lies in appropriate limitations in the stop." - US v. Martinez. The case then continues that they are NOT allowed to stop every car, only selected cars, nor are they allowed to search the car without a warrant.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[webweave]

I cross the border a lot and when I first got wind of these searches I stopped carrying a laptop across the border. I put whatever I need on my server or I hide a memory stick somewhere. That's the unreasonable part of the search, anyone can get tons of data into or out of the US as there is no control on the internet. Criminals have stopped and business people who don't want to be hassled have stopped all that is left is Joe average who is being trained to do what the government says. I just don't want the trouble of waiting for some government employee to search my computer. Years ago I had my computer and disks searched in Saudi Arabia and it was no fun. Its strange how much America now resembles Saudi.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference was that the Senator would be much more likely to defend the state government's interest. One of the major points of our system, even after the articles of confederation, was to have many strong state governments overseen by a weak federal government. This allows for a lot of things, such as letting different states set different laws, and may the better one win (the whole competition thing; much easier to move between states than between countries).
However, the federal government has been gradually taking a greater share of power to itself. The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the major tipping points. Now Senators have absolutely no stake in defending State power (the seemingly forgotten Tenth Amendment) and we get ridiculous things like the federal government taking money from the states for road construction, and then only giving it back with strings attached (this is increasingly happening in education, and it's quite... educational, dare I say, to plot the results of US students on international tests over time with the level of federal involvement in education over time).

In any case, read up on the debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists if you're curious about why some people view this as a problem.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. ;-)

The founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson said that, since the laws exist to serve the People, then the laws should be written in plain English so the people can understand them. Per usual today's politicians ignore the good ideas and instead embrace the bad (make today's bills unreadable and nigh-impossible to understand).

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[LVSlushdat]

I'm betting a LOT of the "legal illiteracy" and "shithouse lawyering" you refer to, is based on people's innate feeling of how the Constitution *should* be interpreted, and how I believe it was originally intended to be interpreted by the founding fathers.. It just shows how far we've come from what the framers of the Constitution intended America to work....

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

Or as Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party put it more eloquently - "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." (1820)

and...

"the Federal Judiciary - an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into just one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)

More - http://www.indianchild.com/thomas_jefferson.htm

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[dkleinsc]

Who said the Dirty Brown People had to be foreign?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Ogive17]

I agree that most probably are unreasonable. I've read stories where people have had their laptop seized at the border because a border agent claimed they saw kiddie porn on the screen. While a complete possibility... seriously?!? Kiddie porn is the one excuse "law" enforcement can use that no one wants to argue against.

We have one MFG plant and a few tier 2 suppliers in Mexico and occasionally travel there for business. We were informed to leave our laptops at home if we drove across the border to eliminate the risk of it being seized for "review'.

Best thing you can do is not to take your laptop. Second best thing (if you had to have the laptop on the trip) is to have it packed away and out of sight when crossing the border. Sure they may ask if you have one and ask to see it.. but out of sight, out of mind could possibly help out.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Dr. Evil]

More and more, the U.S. constitution seems like an inconvenience to the government and not something to uphold and protect :-(

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Flea of Pain]

If you have to post as an AC then don't post in the first place.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Flea of Pain]

Perhaps he has an addiction to some of the delicious cereal and crackers there are available there which aren't available in Canada. Trust me, they are worth the cavity searches.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

kill yourself, slave

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jhol13]

I have not read it and therefore I am not keen to point out anything.

I have just seen some very good changes to Finnish constitution. As it is much younger I have a feeling that the USA constitution might have outdated laws (or what you call them).

Anyway I cannot understand why it is held in such a high value. Why not change the constitution if a better is found?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[characterZer0]

Which cereals and crackers are they?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Constitution gives Congress the duty to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare"
>>>

That's only the first half of the sentence. You need to read the WHOLE sentence. To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)

He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)

And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[DarkAce911]

I bet that without the 17th amendment, we would not have the same Senators in office for 40 or 50 years. That would do wonders for our Government.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Civil_Disobedient]

Listen, our unbridled profits lead to the lion's share of world's medical advances

This is pure, 100% USDA approved genuine horseshit. That it keeps getting trotted out as some ace-in-the-hole to forgive our ass-backwards healthcare system is symptomatic of the ignorance most Americans have of world history. Let's take a look at some of the "big-time" medical advances of the last century, shall we?

• Penicillin: UK
• Heart Transplant: South Africa
• Aspirin: Germany (by way of France)
• X-Rays: Germany
• Valium: Switzerland
• Antidepressants: Switzerland
• Pap Smear: Greece
• ...et-fucking-cetera...

The US has certainly had its share of medical contributions, but the most visible (and shameful) has been the commercialization of medicine--pharmaceuticals in particular, and the artificial restrictions on distribution that generate such wonderful, lovely profits.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jhol13]

if a law is found by the courts to violate the Constitution or contradict it, that law is null and void

Same here.

We do take the constitution seriously too, and any changes will be looked with suspicion. Changing the constitutional laws is much harder than "normal" laws, but not impossible.

I have nothing against guarding the laws, as long as they are still good.

You mentioned the "right to bear arms". IMHO, and I mean very humble, it might not be "the best possible" today. But trust me, there is absolutely nothing I am willing to do in order change that, it is none of my business.

Our independence came a bit differently though I am certain they did feel their rights being violated. However, the constitution was written afterwards.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Flea of Pain]

Well, most of the exotic flavor derivatives, like blueberry flavoured miniwheats (as opposed to normal ones). And for crackers stuff like Jalapeno cheese nips (where I can only find normal ones here).

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jhol13]

I did not want to imply you should ignore it.

We do have a constitution ourselves and we are not going to let the government to ignore it.

But we are willing to change it (we do not feel such a hatred or fear towards government as you probably do).

We think the government, or rather the people in the government, are to serve us in friendly terms, not some enemy we must fight against.

Well, there are politicians so you can estimate how well the government serves people and how well themselves :-)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[russotto]

nothing else will fix it. sorry to say that but the system is beyond repair. we're watching it fully melt down in front of our eyes. I expect a revolution (or collapse) in the next 10-20 years, if it even takes that long.

You're an optimist; you've forgotten a major point of _1984_ -- "A boot stomping on a human face, forever".

Most people don't _want_ liberty. There's no powerful politicians out there advocating for liberty. Liberty has neither constituency nor champion. So, because the US Constitution is a document meant to preserve liberty, the courts have to interpret it out of existence, and the people are fine with that, accepting the flimsiest rationalizations as if they're obviously true.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Hatta]

You know what, the courts are dead wrong. They are people too, and they make mistakes. Unfortunately The People have no recourse when Justices repeatedly act counter to common sense and the interests of the people. When we have people like Scalia saying things like "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached", it's clear that there's something dramatically wrong with the Supreme Court. Someone who holds that opinion isn't fit to wield power over a Quickie-Mart, let alone the entire US justice system.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

DHS proposed that any location within 100 miles of any border, seacoast, port or international airport be designated as "border", giving customs and INS authority to conduct warantless searches and seizures within those border areas. The majority of US population resides within these areas.
All your computer are belong to us!

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[avxo]

So your argument is that because (a) Judges and Justices are people and peope may err and (b) Scalia made a monumental blunder, somehow all decisions are equally flawed? I call bullshit.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon because I've moderated...

You say that you are willing to change your constitution in a way that implies the US cannot or will not change its constitution. If I recall correctly, there are no less than 27 amendments to the US constitution. I agree that the system needs work, of course, but your implication that the US constitution has never been changed or cannot be changed is patently false.

Also, while there are those that may hate the US government, it's because of their own ignorance that things have developed this way. If they bothered to learn about the issues (beyond the political ads) and got involved in their government affairs, things would be very different.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Stupendoussteve]

In many ways it's because it is meant to be. The Constitution was made to limit the Federal Government, it's no surprise (especially since many politicians are lawyers) that the Fed does as much as it can to get around those limits. Unfortunately the states and the people, which are supposed to hold the majority of the power, do not really call them out.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon because I've moderated...

I wish I had gotten into this discussion sooner because now most people won't see this reply, but I think this is really the heart of the issue. All a person would have to do is reformat or buy a clean hard drive, cross the border, and download their files from their server. No search can stop that.

It doesn't matter if the searches are unreasonable. The whole thing becomes a complete non-issue.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[BarefootClown]

I re-read it periodically

Why?

I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today. We (Finns) have had several changes to constitution as we see the world change.

So do we. In fact, we recognized that need early on and built in a process for it.

The problem comes when the legislature ignores the process and says "well, we want to do this, so we're just going to do it, lack of lawful authority be damned." When people accept the government's unauthorized laws on one point, it establishes a precedent that (constitutionally) unauthorized laws are just fine, and ultimately renders the whole document moot.

Want to step into a new function to adapt with the times? You can do that--just follow the procedure to do so. But if you can't garner the support to amend the Constitution, perhaps you ought to reconsider whether it's something you really ought to be doing.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[cpotoso]

Look, you are either inside the U.S.A. (in which case the constitution holds) or outside (in which case the government has no jurisdiction). The fact that the SOCUS has decided that there are regions within the US where the constitution does not hold should be grounds for impeachment of the court.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Hatta]

No, my point is that since Justices are flawed, some of their decisions may be flawed as well. We have to judge their decisions on their merits, and not just throw up our hands and say "Supreme court did it."

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

...as the routine search was not invasive...

I find searching through my computer for files is invasive, it's the same expectation you would have for customs officers to not go reading every line of your diary if you brought it along, and if your response to that is reading a diary is not invasive then you're delusional.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[arminw]

...the government has singificant leeway (but not a carte blanche) to conduct searches at the border without running afoul of 4th Amendment...

A fundamental right of this government or any government is to control its borders. This has been the case since the founding of the Republic, indeed before the founding. Every country has always had this power. I don't see any difference between them searching your suitcase for contraband material goods or searching of your computer in that suitcase for contraband information. I have had the government confiscate some German smoked meats I have tried to bring into the USA.

Apparently the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution applies only in a limited way at border crossings and that the government does have a legitimate right to search goods and persons. The best way to avoid trouble from the government in this department, is to simply have no banned material for them to find. If you have nothing illegal on your computer or in your suitcase you will not be molested by the border patrol or customs. Is that so hard to grasp?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

AC or not, the point is still valid Mr Strawman.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why not change the constitution if a better is found?
 
Because we haven't found better.
 
There are lots of constitutions these days that seem "very good" even to those who take the time to read them. I challenge you to read China's constitution and compare it with your own.
 
But anyway, if you haven't read the U.S. constitution, at least don't prove your ignorance by complaining about it, when it is but one aspect of what you must perceive as a troubled nation.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[purplepolecat]

(yes, my PERSOANAL RIGHT to bear a firearm)

Freudian typo !

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[thisnamestoolong]

I can't fathom any grounds on which you can consider searching the personal information on a traveler's computer to be reasonable. How is this necessary for security? If a nasty little terrorist needs to get through the border with their nasty little, super-secret terrorist plans there are PLENTY of other ways for them to accomplish this without having the data on their laptop. If they put it on an SD card and hid it somewhere in the vehicle, it would be virtually impossible to find. Or they could mail said SD card to their destination right before crossing. This is not even to mention how comically overblown the fear of terrorists has become in our society (you have a better chance of being killed by lightning, for Christ's sake!).

This does nothing to protect security and does a great amount to violate our privacy. Even if it could protect security a bit, I would still say that the violation of privacy is far too great. Not only are they keeping certain physical goods out of the country with border searches, but the thought police are now trying to prevent the flow of any doubleplusungood ideas into our nation. This is absolutely beyond the pale and needs to stop immediately.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[arminw]

...Thus EVERYbody gets reamed when they transport their electronics across a border...

It has always been true, that everybody suffers from a few evildoers. It is just the nature of any law, that it applies to everybody. However anybody who is law-abiding has nothing to fear if they search your luggage or your computer within that luggage for things that the government has decided are not to be in people's possession or brought into the country.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TheMeuge]

Except you picked a number of developments, some of which were chance discoveries (aspirin, penicillin), some of which are not what you think they are (pap smear), and some of which don't apply because of socialized medicine time-frames and weren't even medical discoveries to begin with (x-ray).

Instead, you can look at the number of biomedical research papers coming out on a yearly basis from the USA versus the rest of the world... and at how many new drugs are developed in the USA versus the rest of the world... and at how much money is being spent on basic and clinical biomedical research in the USA versus the rest of the world (even despite the shamefully low percentage of GDP that NIH financing occupies). You can look at the number of post-doctoral positions in biomedical research in the USA versus the rest of the world... etc...

But you did none of those things. You had an opinion, and then selected some random examples that don't even support it properly, and used them to come up with a conclusion that pleased you. Anyone with an IQ above that of a cucumber can do that.

Furthermore, those "wonderful profits" that you seem to hate so much, are doing a wonderful job, getting $100-million efficacy and safety studies necessary for FDA approval... equipping at least as many labs for applied research as the government seems fit to fund for basic research... and keeping a much larger pool of scientists employed.

I just think that a disease affects the middle-class liberal left in this country... and that disease is jealousy and ignorance. Anything that brings profit is seen as underhanded and negative... when in fact that's the only predictable drive that people have, which can then be harnessed to drive them forward. You condemn self-interest, and then proceed to demand a number of things you claim to be entitled to... which is the very definition of self-interest. That's hypocrisy and double-think of the highest order... and the reason why our society is going down the drain.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the incident that lead the 17th amendment was a Montanan that paid members of the state legislature to elect him. William Clark

Bribing legislators is probably a lot easier than winning a popular election. I'll stick with the current method.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, you are either inside the U.S.A. (in which case the constitution holds) or outside (in which case the government has no jurisdiction). The fact that the SOCUS has decided that there are regions within the US where the constitution does not hold should be grounds for impeachment of the court.

Not to mention that the Constitution was predicated on the idea that all people have these rights, even if they can only be secured within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.

Situations like this are the fruits of accepting the idea that the government grants rights, rather than protecting natural rights.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, no fair talking about sigs without quoting them. Some of us are trying to read without accounts, JavaScript, or cookies, you insensitive clod!

Is there any way to see sigs (via someone's User page or something, maybe) without enabling any of those?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[TubeSteak]

That's only the first half of the sentence. You need to read the WHOLE sentence.

The States have never had control of international borders, which moots your entire argument.
Further, the States were never intended to have control of international borders.
I hate to repeat myself, but...

The same Congress that passed the Fourth Amendment
explicitly permitted customs officials to board
ships and vessels "for the purposes * * * of examining
and searching" the ships and vessels and to "examine
the cargo or contents" of those conveyances as they
entered this country.

" That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration ."
-United States v. Ramsey, 1977

I think the problem is that so many people who want to shout "but the Constitution doesn't say so!!1" or "States rights!" tend to ignore the extensive Common Law (made by British Kings and Queens) which our Constitutional Republic is built upon. The burden is obviously upon you to prove your assertion that 210+ years of border searching is not allowed by the Constitution. And you can't.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Civil_Disobedient]

some of which were chance discoveries (aspirin, penicillin)

Your words: "Listen, our unbridled profits lead to the lion's share of the world's medical advances"

It doesn't matter if it was a "chance" discovery or the concerted efforts of hundreds of scientists. You said that United States capitalism is the direct cause for the "lion's share" of the world's medical advances, and the fact is that is simply wrong. And by the way, aspirin had actually been known about for centuries, but it was Bayer... that's right, a foreign pharma that perfected its use--so much for "chance".

some of which don't apply because of socialized medicine time-frames

You're the one bringing up socialized medicine. I simply countered your ridiculous assertion that the "lion's share" of the world's medical advances are a direct result of U.S. medical profiteering. Some of the advances were dumb luck. Some of them were because of directed research at universities. And yes, some of them were because of the American profit-motive. But the lion's share? I think fucking not.

and weren't even medical discoveries to begin with (x-ray)

OK, next time you break a bone, please let the nice doctors know you won't be needing this "non-medical" discovery.

Instead, you can look at the number of biomedical research papers coming out on a yearly basis from the USA versus the rest of the world...

There are more universities in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, so naturally there will be more research papers coming out. But here again, you're changing the subject. How many research papers have directly resulted in the lion's share of the world's medical advances?

and at how many new drugs are developed in the USA versus the rest of the world

Of course! We're great at making pills. Pills if you're tired, pills if you're unmotivated, pills if you're angry, pills if you're fat... but the profit-motive doesn't lead to advances for the "world." It leads to advances in the physical and mental problems of your customers. And who are your customers? Those who can pay. Which is why the Great American System has yet to come up with solutions to malaria, AIDS, and tuberculosis.

You had an opinion, and then selected some random examples that don't even support it properly

No, you had an opinion, a rather transparent and biased one: "our unbridled profits lead to the lion's share of world's medical advances" . An opinion which was shot down fairly easily, and now you're trying to change the subject because you know you stuck your foot in your mouth.

I just think that a disease affects the middle-class liberal left in this country... and that disease is jealousy and ignorance.

Must be contagious! Say, maybe the great U.S. medical industry will see enough dollars to want to cure these terrible diseases.

in fact that's the only predictable drive that people have, which can then be harnessed to drive them forward

Tell that to Henry Dunant and Clara Barton. Just because you're a soulless cretin doesn't mean we all are.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Atario]

So in your eyes, "certain high output firearms (which inevitably means ALL firearms)" are equivalent to weapons of mass destruction. Have you every considered therapy?

Listen, if you want a firearm like the kind the Founding Fathers used, hey, knock yourself out. But multiply that sustained firing rate by a couple orders of magnitude, and you have a whole different category of weapon. If you can't see that, then there's no helping you.

So is that why they come to the U.S. to get their surgeries done

Where "they" means "an insignificant handful of cases"? http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/study_debunks_myth_of_desperate_canadians_seeking_us_health_care/

Listen, our unbridled profits lead to the lion's share of world's medical advances

[Citation needed]. Also, you're not allowed to count as "medical advances" things like irrelevant tweaks to a drug so its patent window can be started again -- there's those wonderful, productive profit motives again.

have you ever asked your mom: "But Bobby's mom let him do X, why can't I?" and gotten "I am not Bobby's mom" in response? Well, it's kind of like that

So what you're saying is, the vast majority of Americans, who want government-provided health care, can't have it because you said so?

shouldn't you be telling the Swiss that the fact that they keep their M-16s (read: high-output firearms) at home after their military service is negatively affecting their domestic tranquility, low crime-rate and all?

Tell you what, you get the US to institute an official national policy of neutrality in all conflicts, as well as universal mandatory conscription, and then we'll talk.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today."

I call bullshit. There is nothing in the constitution of the United States, or the amendments, that is irrelevant today.

Something something 3/5 of a person something something...

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I would say that makes sense, but that would be a complete lie.

Like pretty much everywhere (as a reasonable consequence of causality) the people who make the laws in the US, or specifically the constitution in this case, made them when they had no idea if the populace would allow them to continue making laws or whether they would rise up. When the constitution, and the bill of rights, were drafted, the people in power had absolutely no idea whether the country would still exist in ten years, much less two hundred. The laws back then WERE drafted with the idea that you had to get at least a majority of the country on your side or else they'd splinter into factions. And frankly, I doubt you, or I, could manage to create a nation on the frontier, without lines of control or communication, which was unified so well that with only one notable exception, there was never a splinter faction that tried to run off and do their own thing.

The kind of cruft that you're talking about is the consequence of people who know that the system that they're part of is good and that people will continue to want and need it. They're taking advantage of a good thing, the rule of law, and since they're the closest to it they can find their way through the cracks in ways civilians can't--to put it glibly, they're not above the law, they're inside it, exactly where it looks like they are.

Your "Nothing for it but to tear down one of the single greatest accomplishments in human history" attitude isn't unwarranted (ironic as that is based on the article), but it is illogical. The US of A will someday die. Everything living does. Whether that's because a meteor took it out or civil unrest made civil hands unclean, we won't know until it happens. However, the jerks in the government are no different than the jerks everywhere, and when they wipe their butt it smells no cleaner and no fouler than yours (even if they wipe their butt with money and so it has cocaine in it).

Human beings got where they were in history because they have free agency. You're trying to say that because that free agency is hindered in relatively small ways for a small subset of the population, that nobody has freedom or the ability to change things. Free agency is what CREATED the united states. It's what created every nation in the world, every building, every lasting stone monument. However, in all cases you had to convince a lot of other people to go along with your scheme, whether that involves submitting to a government or hauling stone blocks or selling land.

The reason the USA hasn't had a major revolution since the Civil War is because there hasn't been a good reason for there to be one. If there was one, a really good one, people would KNOW. They might still be cowards and the movement might not win, but it wouldn't be a flash in the pan. The populace looks like a herd of the ignorant from outside, but whatever else they are, every single person in that herd is a human being. They may behave statistically, but they are every single friggin' one of them making a decision based on everything they know and everything they believe.

If you want to see a revolution, then don't "keep your head down". Make a news network, and make it flashy. Show every single wrong that has been done in glorious detail and ignore every citizen who is saved by medicare and social security, every NASA technician who's living out their dream of being part of something greater, every police officer who stops brutal rape from happening in the streets. Maybe if you're all flash and glory you'll actually create that world-ending revolution you seem to be predicting.

Or you could do the same thing, but show them everything they need to make their own decisions, and maybe the world would actually get BETTER instead.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[gnud]

My actual point (which I admit wasnt clear to anyone who isn't me) is that if politicians tried to start up some major fingerprint archive for all citizens, there would be an uproar.
So instead, my guess is the government gets these from foreign intelligence. Conveniently linked to your passport.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

revolution. nothing else will fix it. sorry to say that but the system is beyond repair. we're watching it fully melt down in front of our eyes. I expect a revolution (or collapse) in the next 10-20 years, if it even takes that long.

Where was this head full of steam during the Bush reign, when it might've made a difference?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how reliable fingerprint evidence is? No? Well neither does anyone else. Two studies I'm aware of (one British and one American) were not completed because the governments yanked their respective funding.

So when your fingerprint matches the fingerprint of an actual terrorist (remember, nobody knows how likely this is) and you're spirited away to some CIA torture center in Afghanistan without any due process, perhaps you'll start to question the wisdom of having your prints on file.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite; rather, it's that they're permitted to deny you entry to the country if you decline. You're free to hang out in the terminal and maybe schedule a flight somewhere else, if you have the money (see the case of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, who was forbidden entry into Great Britain and France after having had his papers stolen, and ended up having to live in the terminal at Charles de Gaulle for eighteen years).

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Fred_A]

It has always been my understanding that the Supreme Court has determined that the border is where the powers of the executive to order searches has been at its zenith.

More precisely, warrants are not required at the border.

So, within that confluence of factors, the searches were probably quite legally acceptable.

Which :
- doesn't make them any more reasonable
- is starting to piss off people to the point they are reconsidering going to physically go to your crazy country for business
- remains utterly stupid since the US were still connected to the Internet last tie I checked

So maybe it's "legally acceptable" in an international blank zone. But that's certainly not how people perceive it. In the end, it's both against the spirit of the law and utterly useless.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Burz]

Oh.

Is that why a particular group of people are showing up at healthcare town hall discussions with firearms (incl. semi-automatic) on display and shouting about bloodshed? I suppose you think opposing groups should show up with firearms and do the same?

The problem with the U.S. Constitution today is that its worshiped by a fundamentalist cult that makes meaningful changes to the power structure impossible. And as long as firearms are treated as an individual right, the oft vaguely-defined 'bad guys' will be assumed as armed to the teeth and the government will have all the public support they need for the continued militarization of domestic police forces.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Runaway1956]

"as long as firearms are treated as an individual right"

If you are literate, you will find that the militia has the right to bear arms, AND that said militia consists of all able-bodied men, without qualification. Try reading again, then come back and try to tell me different. In today's world, the militia may very well include able-bodied women, as well. So, yes, it IS an individual right - one which may not be constitutionally infringed upon without due process of law.

"Is that why a particular group of people are showing up at healthcare town hall discussions with firearms "

Citation? Let me tell you before you get started - I'm neither a democrat, nor a republican. Both make me nauseous. I don't subscribe to the party line of any party, and I read pretty widely. You give me some credible sources, I might believe you. But, please, don't expect me to accept a claim like that based on your word and one or two anecdotal stories on a blog somewhere. Details with names and photos with recognizable landmardks would be great. A blurry cell-phone pic that might have been shot in some slashdotter's basement home won't work either.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Nefarious Wheel]

That's the first decent alternative answer I've ever received from that joke. Good one!

And whoever modded me flamebait, it's a logic joke, not a racist one. The answer was "You don't bury survivors". (/whoosh).

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Damvan]

"establish checkpoints on public highways in the vicinity of the Mexican border"

The checkpoint on the I-15 from San Diego north is 75 miles from the border, not even close to the vicinity of Mexico. My question is, at these Immigration Checkpoints, 75 miles from the border, can they seize or examine our laptops?

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

No. They're not even allowed to enter your car or look inside your trunk, unless they have probable cause (like hearing someone scream for help). Any officer who tries to enter your car is committing a crime.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[commodore64_love]

>>>The States have never had control of international borders,

I know. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your belief that the general welfare clause gives Congress the power to do (almost) anything they please. That's not what the U.S. Constitution says. On the contrary it grants Congress only a very small list of powers (see Madison's commentary).

>>>I think the problem is people want to shout "but the Constitution doesn't say so!"

No the problem is that many of us have encountered these "checkpoints" that are not anywhere near the border (me - in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) (my brother- in New Hampshire), and we're tired of being harassed on U.S. soil. We should be able to taking a fraking vacation without being interrogated. I don't mind answering a few questions like my name or showing my drivers license, but when an officer demands to see inside my trunk then he's crossed the line. He's committing an illegal act per the Constitution.

And this isn't the only case. The whole uproar with Obama's friend who was arrested - that too was an illegal search. It's an illegal act to enter a private home without warrant, or probable cause* or permission. Each one of those officers should be placed on one-year suspension without pay. This bullshit needs to stop and it needs to stop NOW.

Otherwise we might stop talking about the "land of the free" but instead "the land of the Congresses' serfs".

*
* (The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that phone calls from neighbors are Not probable cause, due to the potential for harassment by angry neighbors against people they dislike. Probable cause can only be established by the officer on the scene, with his own eyes.)

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Damvan]

So in your eyes "grenades and land mines" are equivalents to weapons of mass destruction.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[DaleSwanson]

The US Constitution was last amended in 1992. Every part of the Constitution can be edited in whatever manner the changing times justifies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

When it comes to things like a massively powerful government I think fear and mistrust are justified and good. The US Federal Government is the richest and most powerful entity on the face of the Earth, I don't think it's unreasonable to keep a close eye on it (power corrupts and all). You should hope that legislators, judges, police officers, etc are good and fair people, but the law should be written as if they are all assumed to be corrupt and evil.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taliban recently overpowered Afghanistan's ballot boxes with their Ammo boxes. The "right to bear arms" does not make for a good, democratic society if followed to its logical conclusion.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it the constitution (and law in general) is a joke. If it doesn't suit the purpose of the current government they just ignore or amend it. The are still people being held in Gitmo,... is that constitutional. And, the US is AFAIK the only place the openly sanctions torture.

The US was a stalwart for human rights until they had the slightest cause to abuse people. Now the US is far more brash in committing war crimes and various other abused of civil liberties (previously they only sanctioned Israel's war crimes).

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Lunzo]

You forgot the most important one:

• Viagra: USA

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[d_i_r_t_y]

How can any society claim to be "free" when the state can go through your private, often commercially sensitive, informations every time you cross a border in the US? How can any society make a claim to be "free" when many states do not permit women to have control over their own bodies?

The US these days has less freedom than Russia.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[RockDoctor]

They're not showing any probable cause,

These are searches taking place at the border (port of entry/exit), right? That's your probable cause. The people there fall into 4 classes - citizens vs non-citizens and incoming vs outgoing. This is your truth table :

citizen + outgoing they're trying to get out of the country. Must have been doing something and are now trying to escape. Search them. non-citizen + outgoing What were they doing in the country? Search them to find out. citizen + incoming They've had some reason to be outside the country for some reason ; they're unpatriotic at the minimum, and have probably been doing something illegal. Search them to find out what and stop them doing it. What possible attraction could exist outside our borders, which we are keeping safe. Better taser them too to welcome them back home. non-citizen + incoming Illegal immigrant, or someone planning to dig up our gold-plated pavements. Taser them then search them!

Cynical? Moi?

Oui!

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[decoy256]

You don't think "suck my balls" is eloquent? :(

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[centuren]

UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant,

They're not showing any probable cause, either. Routine searches with no grounds for suspicion are unreasonable, QED.

-jcr

Good point, but "QED" should read "IMHO", as your opinion regarding what's reasonable is hardly demonstrative proof. Everyone who goes through airport security undergoes some level of search by the government without a warrant or showing probably cause, much more the case with going through customs. Clearly this is something that will have to be determined in the courts.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first off let us face reality.
This action is not unreasonable considering the amount of drugs and cash flowing through American borders. I am aware that common sense is not a prerequisite for our lawmakers, but I am all for them checking the records of drug dealing illegals (and citizen smugglers, too).
There are grounds galore for suspicion. You don't think so? Come live along our southern border and see the gun fights and killings the drug gangs are involved in. If we won't do effective policing of illegal invasion, then we are going to have this kind of thing. You can't live in a vacuum.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Within the US, there has to be either no expectation of privacy....

Where did you come up with this piece?

Are you saying that the police, for no good reason, could simply stretch a rope across the intersections at each end of a block, then tell everyone between the ropes to empty their pockets, wallets, purses, bras and underwear for inspection?

After all, we now all know that, (Thank you, Scott bug-fucking McNeely.) on the street, "we have no expectation of privacy."

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[jcr]

We think the government, or rather the people in the government, are to serve us in friendly terms, not some enemy we must fight against.

That's probably because your government has never committed the kinds of crimes against your own people that ours has. I live in a state where, within living memory, people have been rounded up and imprisoned because of their race, just to give one example.

-jcr

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[sjames]

No.

UNreasonable searches are forbidden in all circumstances. Otherwise a warrant is required except if destruction of evidence is imminent (if they know there is evidence, they have probable cause, otherwise they could be in trouble), the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is being committed (search the person or car, not the home, and of course there is probable cause), or for the safety of an officer in the event of an arrest (in which case there had better be probable cause).

The commonality is that probable cause is always required. Unless they can show that the primary reason to cross the border is to commit a crime, border searches are not part of the deal.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[sjames]

Especially since if the Constitution is voided, so is the federal government. It has no legal authority AT ALL without it. Thus, all federal law would be voided with it.

I just wish the courts would be more careful with it!

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Burz]

Please try not to be so presumptuous and sneering when you are asking someone for more information, at least if you want people to think you're at all sincere in considering their side of an issue.

Nevertheless...

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-08-17-voa45.cfm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/11/Obama-town-hall-meeting-draws-protesters/UPI-61621250011836/

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.guns21aug21,0,1613427.story

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Runaway1956]

"In most, if not all of these incidents, no laws were broken and no arrests were made. The people involved either had legal permits to carry concealed weapons or were demonstrating in a state that allows people to carry firearms out in the open."

Gun permits are a shady deal to start with. Violation of a gun permit law may or may not mean anything at all. I don't believe the state has any right or authority to limit the possession of firearms, except in the cases of felons and/or mentally incompetent.

Your original post lead me to believe that those people in possession of firearms were acting in a threatening or belligerent manner. It seems that is not the case.

I'm sorry that you feel that I sound condescending. All the same, I invite you again to read the constitution, and it's amendments. As an able bodied adult, I am part of the nation's militia, and therefor entitled to keep, maintain, and be responsible for firearms.

Because I am literate, I do not depend on some politician to "interpret" the clear meaning of some relatively plain spoken men. There is nothing in the consititution that is difficult to understand. If there is something that you don't understand, there are plenty of supporting documents, such as letters written between the men who wrote and signed the constitution. No one need be confused, no one need rely on some modern day liberal interpretation.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[CrimsonAvenger]

That said- I assure you that the founders of this country didn't believe we needed protecting from ourselves.

No, the Founders believed we needed to be protected from our government.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution is Rule of Law for the simple reason that if the president (for example) wanted to arrest someone for the crime of having a certain video game he can't do it, because it's not a legal thing to arrest someone for. Under Rule of Men that's entirely possible assuming the President determines the law.

For starters, it doesn't take much to make it illegal. If I'm caught with lock-picking equipment in my possession, my ass is arrested, even if I have never used the implements to pick anything but my teeth and ears. Same with a slim jim, even if I've used it only to get into my own car.

Add to that that the Rule of Law quickly changes into the Rule of Men, especially when the supreme court allows it to happen, e.g. when they allow the roundup and incarceration of American citizens, not to mention the illegal "taking" of their property and possessions, never to be returned, "out of deference to the president in time of war". Prez wants it. SC lets him have it. That's Rule of Men, in spades.

Same time whenever they allow illegal search if the pig "did it in good faith". Same when they let a pig decide when you're "inconvenienced" during the infamous "Murphy Stop" exception.

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

But a good lawyer can make a lot of mileage out of one key word, and "unreasonable" will probably be the word more argued over in this lawsuit.

Too damned bad they can't just go with the simple meaning of "no reason" instead of all the lawyer buggery that's sure to go on.

And where's the "probable" cause (as opposed to "routine suspicion"). BTW, did anyone see any "oath or affirmation" flying by?

Hah -- captcha = permit

Re:It's a search without a warrant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I "try" to avoid travelling to the USA too. I have to go there on business a couple of times a year. I used to travel there once or twice a month, partly on business, but mainly for pleasure -- visiting friends, spending money in your economy. They now visit me on their holidays, and while the local government is not perfect, even the worst border horror stories are nothing compared to what passes for normal when dealing with ICE.

In fact, I used to live in the USA on a nonimmigrant visa, paying income taxes and increasing the USA's GDP. The establishment of the DHS has been a huge part of why I have been trying to avoid the USA. I am not alone. Your economy is certainly not in trouble just because of reductions in tourism and nonimmigrant specialist workers, however it must be contributing. For my part, I'm spending almost that time I used to spend in the USA in Asia now -- it's much better for business and it's also a lot less hassle as a tourist. Even Singapore seems to have a welcoming and liberal (in the non-USA international sense) attitude towards foreigners that has faded in the 'States.

Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

put a single txt file on the desktop that says something like...

I put all my illegal materials on the OTHER laptop

;-)

Re:Here's an idea

[weirdcrashingnoises]

at the soviet border, laptop searches you

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to ya, but the U.S. Supreme Court has construed the "unreasonable" part of the 4th amendment in a very narrow manner when it comes to border-related searches. Probably along the lines of you have no right to international travel.

Re:Here's an idea

[sycodon]

Who takes their laptop to Mexico?

Limited internet connections and a high probability of being hit over the head and the laptop taken.

Re:Here's an idea

[asticia]

World does not consist only of US, Canada and Mexico. There is couple more continents behind oceans.

Re:Here's an idea

[michaelhood]

Much of Mexico has high-speed wireless access via Sprint et al.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we Mexicans go to the US to buy the laptop and then bring it back. How about Mexicans visiting the US? I cross the border at Tijuana several times a year and have never seen or heard from anyone I know that their laptops were searched.

National security...

[bfmorgan]

They roll out the "We can't release this information because of National Security" excuse one more time.

The 4th amendment is only for criminals!

[www.sorehands.com]

Why would you want to hide anything from the government? Why would you not want them to keep all your personal information indefinitely?

What do you have to hide? You must be a communist^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h criminal^h^h^h^h^h^h^h terrorist since you want to have privacy from the government.

Re:The 4th amendment is only for criminals!

[Kral_Blbec]

a year or two ago I would have somewhat felt inclined towards such statements. Not complete agrement but acknowledging that it has a point. The way things have been accelerating towards socialism in the US recently, it just scares me now.

Re:The 4th amendment is only for criminals!

[highplansdrifter]

Socialism is an economic policy, not a personal freedom policy. The US is accelerating towards totalitarianism. Oddly enough I recall having entered a number of those socialist countries that some Americans like to rant about without any ridiculous searches.

Re:The 4th amendment is only for criminals!

[highplansdrifter]

stty erase ^h

Re:The 4th amendment is only for criminals!

[www.sorehands.com]

I was in Beijing in 2002, Shanghai in 2002, Hong Kong in 2009, and Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou in 1996.

At no time, they searched my computer. At no time, they had me take off my shoes in the airport. In 1996, the only thing that I noticed was television black-outs during the Hong Kong news broadcasts (before the return to China.)

Re:The 4th amendment is only for criminals!

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism is an economic policy that requires giving the government enormous amounts of power.

The U.S. is accelerating towards totaliatarianism at least in part because it is accelerating towards socialism.

more info

[belmolis]

You can read the ACLU's press release here and its Freedom of Information Act request here.

I'm also curious as to what happens when information is encrypted. In the case of a non-citizen, they may be able to refuse entry if someone will not decrypt it, but they can't refuse entry to a US citizen.

Re:more info

[MrMista_B]

No, but your laptop can be permanantly seized, and you can be indefinately imprisoned for non-compliance.

Re:more info

[rhook]

Its not non-compliance when a federal judge has ruled that you cannot be forced to reveal your encryption keys. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html

Re:more info

[asticia]

And if I enter country with freshly formatted laptop? Like wiped completely clean. Will it be suspicious as well? Sure they may want to find something behind it. I do not wanna get my laptop being held for indefinite amount of time just because I bought it day ago and haven't had time to bring it up yet ...

Re:more info

[dargaud]

Piece of tape on the battery contacts: "sorry, my battery's dead". Ooops, looks like the power supply is dead too...

Re:more info

[BAlGaInTl]

"That's fine sir or ma'am. It is quicker for us to image the data if we remove the hard drive anyway. Thank you for your understanding."

Re:more info

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I'm guessing that one falls under the 5th amendment. I think that's under the part about not being allowed to be compelled to bear witness against yourself. I figure that would work as long as nobody else has the password that can be summoned in a case against you.

Also wouldn't there be another case under the 5th about private property taken for public use without just compensation? I think that would potentially be a lot of money if a computer had trade secrets or contained assets that a person needed to be productive.

Re:more info

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the UK. At least, not yet.

Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[freedom_india]

Legally pathbreaking but also very potentially damaging.
If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.
In short people will start to hate the border patrol more and DHS will get the blame.
OTOH, if the judge decides that People are NOT people until they enter USA and that the laws of the land do not apply to them until they enter, then it becomes much more abusive.
Border Patrol can easily strip search every 18-yr old girl, in the presence of her parents, and easily barge through every suitcase she has. Also, they can drag a "Person of Interest" to the border, search him, and bring him back.
This raises hackles everywhere.
 

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[jcr]

If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I for one don't consider it advantageous for violations of my right to privacy to be simple and convenient for all concerned.

-jcr

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[belmolis]

I don't think that all of the consequences you propose are realistic. If the courts decide that warrants are necessary, the result will be the termination of most laptop searches, for two reasons. First, the burden of obtaining a warrant for each search would be prohibitive. Second, a judge will only issue a warrant if there is probable cause, which in most cases there won't be.

As for dragging people to the border to search them, that won't happen because the US government lacks the authority to remove a citizen from the country except by court ordered extradition. Note that bringing a US citizen to the border would not be sufficient to license a warrantless search: it would be necessary to remove him from the US since customs inspection applies only to persons entering the US from abroad.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[jcr]

a judge will only issue a warrant if there is probable cause, which in most cases there won't be.

Well, a judge who takes his duty seriously will hold to that standard. Sadly, law enforcement officers routinely find pet judges who'll issue a warrant just because the cop says he wants it.

-jcr

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[nickheart]

Three cheers! Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I'm not offended when my privacy is offended.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[belmolis]

It happens, but "routinely"? Care to back that up?

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Kral_Blbec]

I think he means that they will do it for everyone, meaning you just get to wait at the gate longer now while they do it anyway.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[lastgoodnickname]

the border is 100 miles or more wide these days

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[jcr]

Follow Radley Balko's stories at Reason.com.

-jcr

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[jcr]

I'd got a bit farther than that, and say that i consider it a citizen's duty to require public employees to obey the law. If a cop ever wants to search my car in the future, my answer will be "officer, sorry for the inconvenience, but if you believe you have probable cause to search my vehicle, then you shouldn't have any difficulty convincing a judge to issue a warrant. I'll wait."

-jcr

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Starlon]

I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. I seem to remember a so called "constitution free zone" of 100 miles out from the border. Maybe the modification was for lack of capitalization and punctuation?

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Quothz]

If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.

Er. If the ACLU wins, they get a bunch of documents. The only warrant involved will be if the judge orders Customs to turn over their records.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Quothz]

I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. I seem to remember a so called "constitution free zone" of 100 miles out from the border. Maybe the modification was for lack of capitalization and punctuation?

Prolly 'cause it was wrong. The border has no thickness. The International Boundary Commission surveys and maintains the American-Canadian border, keeping it clear (on land) for 3 meters on a side. They refer to the cleared portion as the vista, separate from the border. The Customs and Border folks don't address the thickness at any point.

You're thinking of a claim by the ACLU some time ago that DHS considered 100 miles from the border to be a constitution-free zone. However, this was just rhetoric in reaction to DHS' behavior near the border; it had nothing to do with any law or legitimate policy. Whether there's a wink-and-nod policy is another matter, but there's no legal reason why you'd have weaker rights near the border (except when actually crossing it).

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah thanks for the clarification. All this time I thought we were living under some evil government. Oh wait, that opinion still hasn't changed. :)

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is wrong. You have to be in the US first in order to be searched.

They cant drag you to the border and bring you back just to search you. That would require them forcing you to enter Mexico or Canada First.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[lbgator]

The OP is referring to the suspicionless internal DHS (border control) check points.
    * http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1804/Davidson/Davidson.html
    * http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b92_1231335983

I can't find anything official from the DHS website, but the claim seems to be that DHS can legally set up spots away from the border and act as if they are at the border for purposes of questioning and searches.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Anonymous Coward]

If he has "probable cause" he doesn't need a warrant. All he has to do is say "I smell marijuana." and suddenly he has probable cause to search.

I was stopped once by a zealous highway patrolman who asked "When was the last time you smoked marijuana?" Incredulous, I said "Uh, never." He took the "Uh" to mean I was lying and therefore assumed the right to search.

Funny thing, he never showed up in court to explain why he didn't find anything.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Theaetetus]

If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.

You really think this will happen? Ma and Pa Hicksville reentering the country from their second honeymoon in Niagara Falls will get detained for 48 hours while a judge signs a warrant, and people will just shrug and say "that's the law"? There are tens of thousands of people crossing the border every day, and you really think that the economy would get dragged to a halt by the border patrol, and no one would say anything?

No, if the ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis, the border searches would all but disappear except for those for whom they are likely to get a warrant. And for them, the warrants will be rubber-stamped.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Shawndeisi]

Actually, you'd just wind up under arrest if you refused to comply when the officer had probable cause. PC is all that is needed to search your car. This is known as the "Motor Vehicle Exception"

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[Damvan]

Enjoy that taser...

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[freedom_india]

Yes. I think so.
Why?
Do you recall how many professors and scientists were prevented from entering USA from 2002 till 2008? Because of paranoia and DHS/TSA?
DHS and TSA are a "Yes Minister" type. They will continue to grow and propagate to justify their existence and the money we spend on them.

Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area

[freedom_india]

You will get a Baton in your mouth, in addition to being strip-searched by a fat lady.

These peanuts are the BOMB!

[BrookHarty]

Its a fishing expedition, they dont have cause other than visiting a 3rd world country. Visiting a 3rd world country = sex crimes they say, wrong.

Myself, I'm such an asshole, I'd military format the laptop HD, with a "FUCK CUSTOMS!!!" dos bootup banner, before I come back into the USA, after I copied anything over the Internet to my home PC. Of course I'd lose my laptop, because they would take it to scan the HD for anything.

Really, I'm already pissed I have to take my shoes off to fly, like my shoes are now a terrorist threat.

When they hire bagage handlers at minium wages, and these fuckers steal laptops. I read that over 1000 laptops are stolen from the aiports a week. WTF? So by this logic, if there was a terrorist threat, they could just plant a bomb on the luggage.

I'm so tired of the "Security theater" show they put on. its a scam. At least some of us are actually calling them out on this bullshit. Bravo for the ACLU for doing this. I walk a fine line at protesting and getting tazed for being a smart ass. I know one of these days my comments at "these peanuts are the bomb" are going to land my ass in federal prison. But at least I can write a book and make a million..

Damn what a country.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[BrookHarty]

By the way, yes I'm drunk when I posted this. :)

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[JDub87]

SUWUTI!

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[belmolis]

I'd military format the laptop

What is "military format"?

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[0123456]

What is "military format"?

Thermite and a couple of magazines from an M-16, if I remember correctly.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[belmolis]

I think he must be using the term differently if the disk is going to boot DOS and put up a banner.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[andy_t_roo]

overwrite with 0's / random data multiple times to ensure that not a single bit of usable data remains.

(not that it has been shown that you can recover data which has been overwritten even once with any degree of certanty (i believe the best that was done was recovering data overwritten once with zeros at between 80 and 90% success per bit, and that was an old drive using techniques which are not realistic today. the cost would be quite a few seconds electron microscope time per bit, so unless you potentially have data worth several thousand billion $, return on investment of extracting data is negative on any modern hard drive)

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe he means a DoD Wipe:
http://www.capasset.com/dod_wipe_datawipe.html

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee thanks! Now they are going to want us to do a breathalizer test while we wait for them to copy our hard drives.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[sukotto]

Really, I'm already pissed I have to take my shoes off to fly, like my shoes are now a terrorist threat.

Just be glad that Reed didn't have that tiny little wad of explosives tucked into his underpants...

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[cbraescu1]

The banner also involves thermite ;-)

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Minozake]

One pass is indeed enough.

http://blog.epcusa.com/2009/03/data-destruction-is-one-pass-overwriting-enough/
http://www.anti-forensics.com/disk-wiping-one-pass-is-enough-part-2-this-time-with-screenshots

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[noidentity]

By the way, yes I'm drunk when I posted this. :)

Don't worry, the rest of us are drunk on bread and circuses.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Sir_Lewk]

And suddenly it becomes much clearer why customs might have an issue with his laptop...

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[jrumney]

The main reason you have to take your shoes off is that they have turned the metal detectors up to paranoid levels, and a lot of shoes have a small piece of spring steel in the sole to give it some rigidity.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Atario]

Really, I'm already pissed I have to take my shoes off to fly, like my shoes are now a terrorist threat.

Well, to be fair, you might throw them at Bush's head.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Anonymous Coward]

Walked through these without setting off the bell, and still got asked to remove the shoes.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Ed_Pinkley]

Really, I'm already pissed I have to take my shoes off to fly, like my shoes are now a terrorist threat.

Just be glad that Reed didn't have that tiny little wad of explosives tucked into his underpants...

...or a body cavity.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[BooRolla]

I wish he hid it up his bum so everyone would truly know what is happening to them as they went through security.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least I can write a book and make a million..

Not a chance. I believe it was the "Son of Sam" case where they decided all profits from book sales could be seized (God, how it makes them jizz their jeans just to use the word "seize") and any profits could be distributed to "victims". I believe you can't even get your hands on the profits to hire a better shyster.

Re:These peanuts are the BOMB!

[jrumney]

Really? I haven't managed to walk through these in the last three years or so without setting off the bell, and that is after removing my belt, shoes and wallet (they say it won't set it off, but it seems just the metal zipper on my trousers is enough these days).

Relationship to a recent story?

[WheelDweller]

How does this mesh with the laptop searches "anytime, anywhere" from just a couple of weeks ago? Why would they JUST look at those at the border?

The really scary part,

[FSWKU]

And the part that concerns me the most, is how they would likely defend against "unreasonable search" allegations. All they have to do is say the search is reasonable based upon suspicion that ANYONE travelling outside of the country could have been doing so for "evil" reasons. This could get them a magic "propable cause" allowance, and your stuff is still siezed/searched. So now we have the government worried that all people travelling abroad are potential terrorists, but they will hastily point out that it's only for people travelling abroad. There are no internal searches anywhere in the US (nevermind the dubious truth of that matter). Lovely choice you have their. Give up any/all information privacy, or never be allowed to leave your country. Sounds a wee bit too East Berlin to me...

Re:The really scary part,

[jcr]

All they have to do is say the search is reasonable based upon suspicion that ANYONE travelling outside of the country could have been doing so for "evil" reasons

That's why we separated the executive and judicial powers in the constitution, and required anyone making such a claim to swear to it, and to convince a judge that their suspicion is reasonable before the judge can issue a warrant.

-jcr

Re:The really scary part,

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we separated the executive and judicial powers in the constitution, and required anyone making such a claim to swear to it, and to convince a judge that their suspicion is reasonable before the judge can issue a warrant.

Nice try. The cops know who all the ex-cop, ex-prosecutor judges are and have them all on speed dial. Those guys are fucking warrant mills.

Just keep your data in the cloud and relax...

[Anonymous Coward]

...seriously.. I stopped keeping actual "data" on my laptops a couple years ago. Search away. It makes no difference to me. Hell, you can confiscate my laptop and I'm only out the value of a netbook.

The drive is ghosted, and my data isn't local.

Fuck you customs. You suck at technology.

Two words..

[Starfleet Command]

Hidden Partition........ Put your pr0n and silly stuff there, keep the rest of the drive clean and clear. There searches are still unreasonable, but they can't fuss about what you have on there in this case

Re:Two words..

[MichaelSmith]

Never, ever carry porn over a border. Anywhere.

Re:Two words..

[Anonymous Coward]

Border guards technicians have been to recent training on how to spot machines that occasionally have other hard drives. Looking for evidence of other drives in the history, recent files and other "remembered" fields makes it pretty trivial to find out whether you have another drive mounted on occasion and what the content is, or at least filenames are.

So he images your drive and sees e:\pr0n\teens\HotTeenGetsPoundedByDaddy.mpg in the deep recesses of your Windows registry (or in one of those stupid hidden folders that can't be deleted which stores such things in Linux) and now they have a warrant to kick down your door.

Never mind that the video is some gigantic busty college girl with some bodybuilder, it sounds dirty.... pervert. Might even get them a warrant to seize all your electronics.

And you didn't even do anything wrong. Neato!

Re:Two words..

[Starfleet Command]

True dat

Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[bezenek]

Carry a large USB stick. Back up your personal information (browser history, saved email, etc.) to it and put it in your pocket or even better, mail it home to yourself at your destination before you board the airplane. When you arrive, replace the personal information.

Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country. Similarly, looking at your saved email is equivalent to requiring you to bring copies of all your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months in order to get into the country.

This is really, really disgusting, and should not happen in the United States of America.

Todd

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[noidentity]

Carry a large USB stick. Back up your personal information (browser history, saved email, etc.) to it and put it in your pocket or even better, mail it home to yourself at your destination before you board the airplane. When you arrive, replace the personal information.

Do what most businesses are no doubt already doing: ship the laptop via UPS, FedEx, etc. Those companies are part of the free market, so they stay in business by not pissing the customer off. You can insure it when you ship with them. What assurance do you have that you will get yours back from customs, with everything intact and nothing added (software or hardware)?

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[bezenek]

Do what most businesses are no doubt already doing: ship the laptop via UPS, FedEx, etc.

This is an excellent idea. But, most of the researchers I know use the flight time to tweak slides for presentations, paper submissions, grant proposals, or read papers as a referee. Most own at least two batteries for long flights. If they did not have their laptop on the plane, they would go nuts.

Another note: If laptops are going to be searched, would iPhones, etc. not be essentially the same? Someone should bring that up in court.

-Todd

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[trawg]

That treats the symptom though, not the problem.

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[ladybugfi]

Weeeelll... Alternatively you could store your stuff in an online backup/sync service, such as Mozy, JungleDisk or Dropbox. Remove your critical stuff from your laptop before boarding and sync them back when you've arrived. This assumes the availability of a network connection and some extra time at your destination, though. And if you don't want to rely on the encryption offered by Mozy and JungleDisk but want to be REALLY sure about security of your files, use TrueCrypt containers for holding your stuff and backup/sync only the containers. Technology to the rescue!

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[noidentity]

Another note: If laptops are going to be searched, would iPhones, etc. not be essentially the same? Someone should bring that up in court.

That could go two ways: they are the same, and since iPhones aren't searched, laptops shouldn't be, or, since laptops are searched, iPhones should be too. I think we know which way that would go...

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[selven]

Why not just stick a Linux distro on there? You'll just use whatever computer you get as if it's your own.

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[techno-vampire]

I know what I'd do: I'd make an FTP connection over SSH to my desktop at home and move everything personal off of my laptop. Then, I'd let them image my hard disk to their heart's content because not only isn't there anything left on it to worry about it, the average customs worker probably wouldn't know how to read an ext4 filesystem anyway.

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[aj50]

Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country. Similarly, looking at your saved email is equivalent to requiring you to bring copies of all your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months in order to get into the country.

No it isn't. It's more like if you voluntarily brought your diary and correspondence with you and they demanded to see it before allowing you into the country.

It's not much better but it's a very different scenario. If you don't want something searched you can leave it at home.

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[Attila Dimedici]

Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country. Similarly, looking at your saved email is equivalent to requiring you to bring copies of all your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months in order to get into the country. Todd

If you were carrying your personal diary when you crossed the border, customs can legally read it. If you are carrying your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months when you cross the border, customs can legally read it. Just because you are carrying it on your laptop doesn't change that.

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what happened when I entered Canada last time: they flipped through my journal, they had me log into my computer and step away. It's not a nice feeling, and it doesn't happen only in the US.

Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country.

Re:Hide your private information on a USB stick.

[ArsenneLupin]

Carry a large USB stick. Back up your personal information (browser history, saved email, etc.) to it and put it in your pocket or even better, ...

You swine!

... mail it home to yourself at your destination before you board the airplane.

What a let-down :-(

Flash drive!

[dagamer34]

If you have pr0n, keep it on a Flash drive using HFS or ext3. Since all government computers are Windows, it'll ask "Please format drive." when you stick it in. BOOM! Instant win!

Re:Flash drive!

[Asic Eng]

You need to have two partitions - a small one with a few holiday snaps you don't care about, and a large one with all other data. The small one is DOS formatted, the large one is ext3. When you connect it to Windows, it will show a small boring drive.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Omestes]

offers completely unbreakable encryption.

Is there such a thing? Unfeasible encryption maybe, but all encryption, AFAIK, is breakable given substantial investments of time and money. Even if brute forcing it would take longer than the Earth will be around, there always is finding weak spots in the algorithms, which might, perhaps, bring the cracking time down to at least feasible time frames (albeit in mere geological time).

And for the Mac users..

[jcr]

There's FileVault. System Preferences->Security->FileVault.

-jcr

Re:And for the Mac users..

[agnosticnixie]

Have they even repaired it for case sensitive FS.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Zerth]

Is there such a thing? Unfeasible encryption maybe, but all encryption, AFAIK, is breakable given substantial investments of time and money.

One Time Pads are infeasible? Or just not encryption?

What is the point?

[lovemayo]

What is the point of these searches? Anyone with a hint of intelligence, who are planning on doing something illegal, would just upload whatever illegal material they're carrying, and wipe the disk. Then they can just download it from the net once they've passed customs.

Oh really?

[kilodelta]

I setup the browsers on my computer and iPod Touch to clear history on exit. I also use Firefox and set the history parameter to zero days. I wonder what they'd do to me?

If they look through my pictures they'll find mostly boring stuff.

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "mostly" is why they look.

Not necessarily

[Sycraft-fu]

What a judge could well rule is that the searches are allowed, but they have restrictions as to what they can do afterwords. This is rather likely. The searches themselves are probalby legal. The supreme court has ruled on the issue of border searches and said that the government has the right to secure its borders and that part of that can be to search a person and their belongings. Their view is more or less that you KNOW you can be searched at the border, so it isn't reasonable for you to assume privacy there.

Ok, but that was back in the day when laptops and such weren't an issue. This was regarding a physical search. So while they can look through your bag for drugs, once they are done with the search you and your belongings are on their way, provided you don't have something illegal.

The problem here is that they are taking laptops, without charge, warrant or even reasonable suspicion, holding them for indefinite times, and refusing to say what they do with them. They won't say what they are looking for, who can get a copy of the data, how long it is retained, when you get your hardware back, nothing. That is rather different than the kind of search the SC said was ok.

So it could well come down that searches are ok, but this kind is not, or that they have to have specific limits on the data they get and so on.

You discover it is like that in Canada. They can search your, and can seize your laptop with a reason. However there are specific limits as to what can be done and how long they can have it, and they are up front about it. You can find them online (which is how I know about them). That's real different from the US where DHS just says "We can do what we want and don't have to tell you anything."

I would predict that is how this will go. The government will be allowed to search you at the border, however they'll be told they can't just grab laptops and hold them forever with no accountability.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Matt_R]

offers completely unbreakable encryption.

Is there such a thing?

No.

Smart Phones Are No Different From Laptops.

[bezenek]

They are searching for "financial records, photos, and Web site histories." Which of these do most people not have on their smart phone? I would say most people have at least one or two of them if not all of them.

How will people react to someone going through their iPhone/Blackberry/etc? What about their child's device! Excuse me, ma'am, but I have to look through your daughter's iPhone...

I do not think people will put up with this.

-Todd

Re:Smart Phones Are No Different From Laptops.

[PPH]

I do not think people will put up with this.

Tough sh*t, buddy. You lost your civil rights when you stepped over the border.

Just like in Soviet Russia.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Omestes]

"One Time Pads" are unbreakable, I suppose, but also somewhat infeasible when it comes to huge amounts of data. Again, I might be mistaken.

Wrong direction?

[PPH]

What puzzles me is that the CBP appears to be searching laptops headed in the wrong direction. Evil-doers are more likely shipping kiddie p0rn, classified documents, pirated videos, photos of potential terrorist targets out rather than in.

As someone pointed out that people like to work on work related stuff while flying in. That sounds like employees of foreign companies coming here to do business. So those CBP searches are most likely done for industrial espionage purposes.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[selven]

So what if some guy in 2657 with his quark computer decrypts my hard drive and finds my plans to blow up the White House next year?

Immigration law

[Anonymous Coward]

Being well read on the constitution is not sufficient for understanding immigration law with respect to admittance, citizenship and the borders (or really for any other area of law). Where the nations sovereignty comes into play there are cases where it trumps rights or freedoms you might expect granted under the constitution.

For example it is currently legal to discriminate against non-citizens during the naturalization process. An example of current law which is rather anachronistic is that citizenship can be denied for anarchists or communists. This seems rather harsh when you consider that in some countries there could be serious negative repercussions for not participating in the communist party, even if a person is personally opposed to the party's beliefs or practice.

http://www.americanlaw.com/citnat.html

Yes, you are indeed correct!

[jonaskoelker]

Wouldn't any halfway smart terrorist just buy a laptop here in the states and download whatever he needs through an encrypted connection to the terrorist data center back home in Dirkadirkastan?

Yes, but it's imperative to give up the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure to capture the dumb terrorists!

(At least that's the only way I can make an argument for what happens that's halfway sensible. It could also be a bald-faced power grab from a people who is thought to either not care or feel it can't do anything about it.)

Really?

[jonaskoelker]

they can drag a "Person of Interest" to the border, search him, and bring him back.

But isn't that in some sense forcibly throwing someone out of the country? Isn't there some law against that?

Does the executive (i.e. police) have the power to do that? Isn't it the case that they can merely detain you until you get put in front of a judge, and the judge can then decide which privacy violations are acceptable in the name of gathering evidence?

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Omestes]

Meta: Troll? How so?

I'm being a pedant, as should be immediately obvious by stating anything about "geologic time" being "feasible"... Damn cryptonerds.

Its sarcasm. I doubt very much that 99% of people have anything serious to hide, and the other 1% is smart enough to hide it.

If it isn't in the US, where's the power from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I ask for your personal belonging and demand your passwords?

If you're not in the US, then I have as much right as these bozos do to that stuff.

How about priviliged information?

[pearl298]

As a Patent Agent I often cross the US/Canada border with highly proprietary client information on my laptop. It is well established in law (both Canadian and US law!) that this information is covered by attorney-client privilege. As a practical matter premature disclosure to a third party (i.e. CBT officials) could result in invalidation of the patent and result in damages running into the BILLIONS of dollars.

I really wonder if any government agency is prepared to accept this liability?

So far this question has not arisen, usually I wave my passport at the official and get waved through. (Yes I do look harmless - so much for appearances LOL)

However sooner or later this situation will come up and I have to wonder how it will be handled - probably poorly if past experience is any guide.

Umm, no

[cheros]

At the moment you know at least for sure when it is searched. If you ship your laptop with a 3rd party I would suggest you better have full disk crypto so it would not be a problem if the transport company staff got into your package and imaged the machine - or tried to add something to it (a secondary risk few think about).

most criminals are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.dumbcriminals.com/
http://stupidcriminalfile.blogspot.com/

A google search for stupid criminal returns around 1.5 million hits and a search for dumb criminal returns over 3.5 million.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[dissy]

offers completely unbreakable encryption.

Is there such a thing?

Geeks talking about encryption is pretty funny.

All encryption is breakable. At least by proxy of the fact your body and bones are also breakable.
The US has tortured before, as well as for less. Either one of those facts alone will work.

Or to make the point using humor: http://xkcd.com/538/

Fourth Amendment

[nurb432]

Doesn't currently apply at the border, which was recently expanded. Don't agree? ( i don't either, just for the record ) the only choice is to get the Supreme court to take the case and rule officially. Until then, federal 'orders' still apply.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Asic Eng]

It would indeed be very easy to pressure someone into giving out the key: "Sorry Sir, if you don't want to give us access you need to return on the next flight".

That's why you need steganography or similar techniques. You need to make a potential attacker believe that there is nothing there to attack. There should be a part of your computer that is accessible and looks like the real thing - however your important data should be on the real system. E.g. you could have a small Windows system (well ok "small"...) and your main Linux system uses an encrypted drive and only boots if you press the right key when you reboot your laptop. (Using a USB stick for booting would be another option). Or you could have two user accounts on your Linux laptop - one "default user" and the other one to use for your daily work. (With access to the encrypted files.)

Forget legal - it's pointless

[joeyblades]

I'm not going to try and make the argument that these searches are not legal.

Any terrorist worth his salt isn't going to have his terrorist manifesto or whatever on his hard disk. All the really sensitive data going to be on a flash drive safely hidden in a body orifice. Searching laptops is a complete waste of time and money.

Zip Bomb

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered whether Customs and Border Protection would be smart enough to figure out if all travelers started carrying a zip bomb on their laptops. Couldn't we collectively just kill all their automated scanners and drive space if we were devious enough to just store zip bombs with tempting filenames?

Why I will not travel now

[bryan1945]

Too much crazy stuff happens when crossing countries (well the US and anyone else) now. I'm just going to stay in my nice little suburb for the next 5 or so years. The mid-atlantic seaboard has enough stuff that I haven't seen yet to last me for about that long. And before you all get fussy, I have written to my federal representatives about a bunch of this stuff. I get very nice, mostly form, letters back. At least they spell my name correctly, as opposed to my states reps; "Dear Brian,". "Dear Moron..."

Yet another frivilous, nuisance lawsuit from aclu!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another frivilous, nuisance lawsuit from aclu, the people that bring you plenty of money wasting lawsuits!

ELIMINATE the aclu! They are clearly against freedom, the constitution, capitalism and Christians! just like the democrats and the socialist, marxist, progressive, communists that were elected last year!

Impeach all democrats and b.o.

speaking from experience...

[MooseTick]

I feel some of the posts here have been misleading. I'm sure I'm not alone, but I have exited/returned to the US 3 times in the last 12 months. I have traveled to Costa Rica, taken a cruise to Mexico, and traveled to China. All those could be potential stops for various illegal activities. I took a laptop, phones, and cameras on all trips.

While customs could have looked at my stuff, they never even asked about it. All 3 had literally hundreds of people trying to pass through customs as fast as they could. Customs asked 2-3 questions mostly to see if I had plants and then moved me along. Some people's post seem to be implying that by passing through customs with a laptop you are guaranteed for them to do an forensic level inspection and keep it indefinately. While that is possible, it seems highly unlikely from my experiences.

Customs workers are just regular people that hate their jobs, want to get through their shifs, and can't wait to go home. Sure, if they got a speeding ticket they mey be grumpy and pass the grief onto others, but there is no major conspiracy to take people's computers and archive their data for the ages.

You know what they say...

[Locke2005]

Cops always have the best drugs, and Homeland Security always has the best porn!

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Daimanta]

"offers completely unbreakable encryption.

Is there such a thing?"

One-time pads. You can even falsify an alternate solution to the encrypted message.

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no
Stop referencing that stupid XKCD comic, it's garbage.

Violations.

[Nekomusume]

When has customs NOT violated that particular set of rules?

Customs agents have pretty much always had the power to search you, your luggage, your vehicle, etc. pretty much on a whim, without all the pesky "probable cause" restrictions that real cops need.

The official line has always been something to the effect of "crossing the border is all the grounds necessary to satisfy the probable cause requirement" or "crossing the border constitutes consent to what would otherwise be illegal searches".

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Omestes]

One-time pads. You can even falsify an alternate solution to the encrypted message.

But with one time pads doesn't the key need to be the same size as the data you want encrypted, which would make it somewhat useless for use on large amounts of data?

Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never been much of an encryption nerd.

(and really, how the hell did my original post get modded troll?)

Re:TrueCrypt - easy free, effective

[Daimanta]

"But with one time pads doesn't the key need to be the same size as the data you want encrypted, which would make it somewhat useless for use on large amounts of data?

Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never been much of an encryption nerd."

yes, but that's the price you pay for 100% deniable decryption.

"(and really, how the hell did my original post get modded troll?)"

I have no clue. Your post was informative and contained no inflammatory subjects.

An interesting assessment

[Burz]

...but somewhat old-fashioned in its terminology and imagery.

The role of having one's "fingers on every button" suggests today's large conglomerated corporations, as it is they who intimately and inescapably interact multiple times per day with each adult citi^H^H^H^Hconsumer with many divisions that now even directly provide us with government services.

Today's government is a sham (or 'cover') in the business of legitimizing corporate initiatives and power, and has been outsourcing so many of its functions that a corporate elite could easily putsch Washington D.C. aside and resume with business (assuming they could market this new authority to the populace, which is conceivable IMO).

The ultimate bureaucrat is a private corporate functionary who is so removed from public accountability that they make publicly appointed bureaucrats look like paragons of respect and efficacy.

Retarded...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck could they want to stop someone from bringing into the country on a laptop?!?

Anything that could be on the laptop could be sent over the net far quicker and easier.

I can't see any justification to search a laptop (other than physically for hidden weapons) at all at a border.

The lesson is clear

[sjames]

When leaving the country, do so with a freshly imaged laptop. Before re-entry, transmit all changes encrypted over the net and then wipe it clean first.

It doesn't really matter if you just hung out on the beach getting drunk the whole time, someone in the background of one of the photos might look a bit like a suspected terrorist's brother's wife's best friend's roomate's dog walker and there you are on the very same beach you traitor!

Speaking of literacy

[Burz]

you didn't read my original post, or you would have realized it wasn't so much about the interpretation of the Constitution, but they way that even its most vague statements are worshiped as immutable gospel.

The Constitution is amendable and should be brought up to date to address how industry has made arms both more vicious and numerous.

That political groups can show up armed at town hall discussions and shout everyone down with rhetoric about the need for bloodshed unchallenged is a clear example of the Constitution's failing to protect democratic processes from "threatening and belligerent behavior".

So what I'd like to know is where's the literacy on your part? Am I to understand that you are here to spout your point of view without more than a cursory reading or understanding of what others are saying?

Re:Speaking of literacy

[Runaway1956]

You've got one part right. The constitution is amendable. What chafes my ass, is when people try to sidestep the constitution. Worse, is when they try to make that constitution say something that it never intended to say.

An voter shows up at some meeting, and he happens to be toting a weapon. What's the problem? Are you afraid of him? Why? What is the problem, exactly? He might shoot you?

Why not leave the pansy pastel rainbow party, and join the party that allows you to carry weapons? That way, you can have your own weapon, and you need not fear. Problem solved, right?

*sigh*

I'm glad I don't live in fear.

Arms are no more vicious than they were in the day the Romans ruled all of the known world. In fact, weapons are comparatively less deadly than back then. A nasty cut with a spear or sword was very likely to get infected and kill you. Today? You can take a bullet or three, get carted off to a hospital, and be saved from death. Besides which, weapons aren't vicious - people are.

As for my immutable gospel - there are no vague statements in it. Every sentence, every phrase, every word in that document was carefully considered. There is nothing vague about it. The only time it may seem vague is when people start parsing words like ole Billy Clinton. "Depends on what you mean by "Sex"" Clinton. And, "What do you mean by "is"" Clinton.

If you don't like the Constitution, why don't you stand up on two legs like a man, and say that you don't like the Constitution. Don't blather meaningless bullshit about how those nutcases 200 years ago couldn't have foreseen where technology would go, or how society would change, or that they didn't comprehend the English language. Just come right out and say that you don't like the United States, or it's government, and that you want to change it. That sounds honest at least, and some people might respect you for it.

And, you need not fear speaking out, either. You'll have a lot of company. There are millions of babbling fools who think that this country could be better if it were run their way. You'll have to stand in line, though. Some of those babbling fools have money, and they are already in Washington trying to buy up a congressman or six to do their bidding. Kinda like Bill Gates and Microsoft in this article: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/030223/Microsoft-Holding-Screw-Google-Meetings-In-DC?art_pos=27

Re:Speaking of literacy

[Burz]

That is a ridiculously long-winded attempt to deny that the behavior of those nutbaggers was not an intimidation tactic used to prevent other citizens from discussing an issue. In your view it was perfectly legal, but your fascist tendency is blinding you from the reality that it was disturbance of the peace AND a violation of others' First Amendment rights.

And I'm sorry to tell you that where the rest of humanity is concerned, respect for free speech is a much more basic indicator of an open democratic society than is personal ownership of guns. The latter hardly rates at all because violent revolutionary action against a government (esp. an elected one) will make criminals out of the revolutionaries anyway.

Re:Speaking of literacy

[Runaway1956]

Thank you, now I know that I'm a fascist. Problem, though. Which fascist power do I support? You might propose a group of fascist-like politicians who would like to be in power. Chances are, I might even agree that those politicians are fascists. Problem still remains - I'm not part of the neo-con movement.

And, I scoff at all the fools in the world who are afraid to own and maintain their own weapons. If/when those who DO support the fascists decide to enforce their views on everyone, what are YOU going to do about it? If the goons begin enforcing their views, free speech will be history - unless you have the raw power to enforce your own freedom.

Oh - wait. Maybe I'm wrong. When there are 3,000 fascist marching down YOUR street, you can probably dial 9-1-1 and everything will be made all better. Never mind the fact that fascists have a history of gun control laws and police states, 9-1-1 will fix everything.

Sometimes, you people almost convince me to give up my guns. In a country of 350 million, where 200 million fear firearms, what good can I do when the fascists take over? My weapons will only make me a target!

Phhht. Nuckin phutcases.

Re:Speaking of literacy

[Burz]

Thank you, now I know that I'm a fascist. Problem, though. Which fascist power do I support? You might propose a group of fascist-like politicians who would like to be in power.

Yeah, because fascists have always been in power and didn't launch campaigns to intimidate the populations of liberal democracies undergoing financial crisis. And they sure didn't regard citizenry with an aversion to violent solutions as 'pansies'.

As with the fallacy of market fundamentalism where all actors are assumed to be perfectly rational and necessarily have access to information needed to make sound decisions, gun fundamentalism holds that the gun increases safety because the gun holders will simply know the right thing to do without gross misunderstandings or overriding passions.

I am not going any further with this because you haven't shown the least bit of intellectual honesty. For instance, you assert that the nutbagger "protesters" appeared with guns where there was nothing to fear in an attempt to insinuate it was the gun-less people who had a problem with fear. What twisted, awful double-talk.

However, it is interesting to know that guns are your antidote to fear.

Re:Speaking of literacy

[Runaway1956]

Please - continue. I'm learning all about myself. Now, I know that I am afraid of - what? my shadow? - and that I own a gun to cure my fear. Please, please, continue. I need to know more about myself.

Nutbaggers, you say? Nut. Bag. Nutbaggers. Hmmmm. If I were to play your game, I might ask why you are interested in the nutsacks of people who carry weapons - but, no, I won't even ask. Don't ask, don't tell.......