Slashdot Mirror
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."
By the way, yes I'm drunk when I posted this. :)
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
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.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
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.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
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 The data is a little out of date (I believe the Chinese have since surpassed the Japanese as the largest foreign creditor) but it shows that the overwhelming majority of the US debt is owned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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
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.
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?
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.