Slashdot Log In
FISA and Border Searches of Laptops
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Aug 05, 2008 07:19 AM
from the not-giving-up-my-keys-no-sir dept.
from the not-giving-up-my-keys-no-sir dept.
With the recent attention to the DHS's draconian policy on laptop searches at borders, a blog post by Steven Bellovin from last month is worth wider discussion. Bellovin extrapolates from the DHS border policy on physical electronic devices and asks why authorities wouldn't push to extend it to electronic data transfers. "...it would seem to make little difference if the information is 'imported' into the US via a physical laptop or via a VPN, or for that matter by a Web connection. The right to search a laptop for information, then, is equivalent to the right to tap any and all international connections, without a warrant or probable cause. (More precisely, one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure; the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is.)"
Related Stories
[+]
DHS Allowed To Take Laptops Indefinitely 1123 comments
andy1307 writes with a Washington Post story giving details of Department of Homeland Security policies for border searches of laptops and other electronic devices (as well as papers). (We have been discussing border searches for a while now.) DHS says such procedures have long been in place but were "disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter," according to the article. Here is a link to the policy (PDF, 5 pages). "Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption, or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement... DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies — which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens — are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism... The policies cover 'any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form,' including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover 'all papers and other written documentation,' including books, pamphlets and 'written materials commonly referred to as "pocket trash..."'"
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Tips For Taking Your Laptop Into and Out of the US? 940 comments
casualsax3 writes "I'm going to be taking a week long round trip from NYC to Puerto Vallarta Mexico sometime next month, and I was planning on taking my laptop with me. I'll probably want to rip a few movies and albums to the drive in order to keep busy on the flight. More important though, is that I'm also going to be taking pictures while I'm there, and storing them on the laptop. With everything in the news, I'm concerned that I'll have to show someone around the internals of my laptop coming back into the US. The pictures are potentially what upsets me the most, as I feel it's an incredible violation of my privacy. Do I actually need to worry about this? If so, should I go about hiding everything? I've heard good things about Truecrypt. Is it worth looking into or am I being overly paranoid?"
[+]
Hardware: US District Ct. Says Defendant Must Provide Decrypted Data 767 comments
An anonymous reader writes "If you're planning on traveling internationally with a laptop, consider the following: District Court Overturns Magistrate Judge in Fifth Amendment Encryption Case. Laptop searches at the border have been discussed many times previously. This is the case where a man entered the country allegedly carrying pornographic material in an encrypted file on his laptop. He initially cooperated with border agents during the search of the laptop then later decided not to cooperate citing the Fifth Amendment. Last year a magistrate judge ruled that compelling the man to enter his password would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Now in a narrow ruling, US District Judge William K. Sessions III said the man had waived his right against self-incrimination when he initially cooperated with border agents."
sohp notes that "the order is not that he produce the key — just that he provide an unencrypted copy."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Old school (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
I have a teletype connected to a tin can that crosses the border with a long peice of twine, connected to another tin can connected to a modem.
That seems to fit the "definition of unreasonable" quite nicely.
Parent
Re:Old school (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary speweth forth:
The fourth amendment gives the specific definition of reasonable:
Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, a description of the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which in turn forms the basis for issuing a warrant, and the warrant itself is the legal pivot upon which the authorization of the federal government to search, or not search, turns.
The states must follow suit because the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Local jurisdictions must follow suit because they must comply with the laws of the state they exist within.
Any argument about "reasonable searches" not being explicitly defined in the 4th amendment is entirely sophist. The 4th goes into very specific detail on exactly that subject, and was written by people whose primary interest was limiting federal power. You can't say that the conditions required for a reasonable search aren't laid out in there. You certainly can't say that the terms for an unreasonable search are laid out in there -- those aren't unreasonable terms, they're reasonable terms.
With the specific and explicit definition of what 'reasonable" is right in hand, given by the constitution itself, the definition of "unreasonable" is crystal clear: everything else.
Now, if congress wants some other definition of "reasonable" in there, then amazingly enough, there is a mechanism specifically provided for them to get that accomplished; that is article V, Amendment. There is no other way they can legitimately effect such a change.
They can, however, assert unauthorized power by simply making unconstitutional legislation, just as they have with ex post facto laws, the inversion of the commerce clause, various kinds of censorship, and an entire laundry list of other unauthorized power grabs; and in such an effort, they will continue to enjoy the support of the executive and the judiciary, because after all -- they're all part of the same system, and all benefit from accruing additional power.
It is very important that we, as citizens, remain cognizant of the difference between the authorizations of power made by the constitution, and the naked grabs for unauthorized power made by oath-breaking members of the executive, congress, and the judiciary. What little power we have -- essentially that of "throw the bums out" with regard to our own members of congress, and the executive -- should be used whenever we detect such unauthorized activity.
The problem is that most people don't bother to read the constitution, and are wholly unaware that the federal government has widely violated its constituting authority in many areas; there's an almost impossible obstacle to overcome with regard to informing the public as to just how far outside the lines the federal government has extended itself.
Parent
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
"Little Frog Legs" and I use smoke signals. Peace, man!
Parent
Re:Old school (Score:5, Interesting)
My laptop has a sticker on it that says "Property of Exxon-Mobil" and a bar code that looks very official. It has never been searched at the border.
Parent
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Old school (Score:5, Funny)
Just tell them you bought the laptop from a former TSA employee . . .
Parent
WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?
"And if they take your laptop, give them your digital camera, iPod and cellphone, too." (Mt 5,40, paraphrased)
Parent
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is
With this Administration's tortured definition of torture, one shouldn't be surprised when they have an unreasonable definition of unreasonable.
Parent
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
Purely a guess: getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other.
Parent
Re:WWJTWU (Score:4, Insightful)
How odd; tha grandparen troll is unmodded, the guy who says "getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other" gets modded offtopic? THE WHOLE THREAD IS OFFTOPIC!!
I'll tell you what Jesus would say - when he was asked if you should pay tribute to Ceasar, he asked whose picture was on the coin. He would say "unreasonable" means what the Supreme Court says it means. Man's laws are no concern of his, he has bigger fish to fry.
AFAIK the bible doesn't say anything about privacy or your rights. So the very question is moot. But the whole Bush administration has been pretty unreasonable if you ask me.
Parent
Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)
If Jesus was here today, I know EXACTLY what he would do.
He would scream "Metal carts, pulled by unseen demonic horses! Iron mountains!" in Aramaic, then go hide somewhere.
Parent
The gov agrees. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government agrees that they should have the right to investigate each and every connection that goes in or out of the United States, no warrant required. It's impractical to actually watch every connection in real time, or to store them all, but they certainly believe they should have the option to investigate whichever connections they choose at a whim.
Re:The gov agrees. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up. Only 2 years ago it was impractical to sniff all traffic and identify P2P and insert reset packets. It was unreasonable to record all phone conversations. It was unreasonable to have thousands of cameras around the UK monitoring everything. It was unreasonable to have cameras that recognize license plates and automatically bill you for running red lights.
Parent
No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, any country is safer if nobody wants to go and visit it anymore.
"I want everyone to remember why they need us" - liberties and freedoms that are eroded in the name of security and protection never seem to return once the threat is lifted again, and each one is another step on the path to Totalitarianism.
Re:No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have our own versions of unlimited surveillance and a 'black bag' type system if they think you're a terrorist.
While I don't support the theory that the US gov did 9/11 themselves... given their actions so far it's not that far of a stretch to say they may have held back from preventing it in an effort to give themselves more power... or at a minimum are using the situation to their advantage.
Terrorists goal is to disrupt life, and make us change our way of living because of fear. I'd say that we're letting them win every time we remove another freedom due to fear.
Parent
Re:No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
That quote becomes a lot more sinister, when you write it the way John Hurt says it in the movie: "I want everyone to remember why they need us". He's not emphasising the "need" part - he's emphasising that they need "us" i.e. THAT particular regime.
It's not that we need a government - it's that we need THAT particular government.
The comments leading up to the final chapter, are just as sinister:
"The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance. Tonight any protester, any instigator or agitator will be made example of." - Sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe not while coupled together, but I've certainly heard these two sentences, or very similar ones, from prominant politicians.
Of course the full rant by John Hurt leading up to your quote is very scary and familiar in its whole:
"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound through the entire interlink. I want this country to realise that we stand on the brink of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember, why they need us!"
Again, sounds vaguely familiar. Even sounded rather familiar the first time I heard it in the movie. Yet, I can't for the life of me figure out quite why that is.
Parent
Unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the Supreme Court has said that the Constitutional limits on Copyright, "for a limited time", that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means, then it follows that "unreasonable" means whatever Congress says it means, too.
The cops opened my unlocked garage and "had a look around", I guess that's reasonable. They searched my car because it was parked outside a dope house (I had no idea; my passengers were collecting money owed them by a slumlord they were cleaning houses for) as well as my person. I guess that's not unreasonable, either.
Why is it they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?
The Supreme court, in effect, says that the Constitutuon is meaningless. We, the people, no longer have any rights. And you can bet your wife's ass that they're already reading your mail and seeing who you connect to on the internet. The people running things today don't believe in the rule of law.
Contrast with the mail (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contrast with the mail (Score:5, Insightful)
The US was founded after a long fight for freedom from the UK, an oppressive parent country - and the constitution reflects that, deliberately enshrining and limiting the rights of the government, not the people. If the right was not granted to the government, the government didn't have it.
Specific limitations were explained where they contrasted to the old system. For example secure in your person and papers, right to form a well organised malitia, absolute freedom of speech etc - all these things defined as actions the government could not interfere with, where previously they were frequently interfered with and/or denied.
Since that time, the common interpretation seems to have reversed; it is now assumed that if the right is not granted to the people, the people don't have it.
So where clearly the point of privacy in mail was meant to contrast to the previous system by granting privacy in communications (like mail), it has now been taken to mean no privacy in any form of communication except mail.
Parent
I'll make a prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
So I guess what'll happen is that people will take an Eee PC with them, and then download the data as needed from some offsite backup service. That, and the whole problem of people avoiding business travel to the United States.
Re:I'll make a prediction (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple and effective. All you need is your data online (like machine at home powered on) and the ability to reach it. Except the case when you'd need to transfer gigabytes of data, this would be the best solution.
Parent
I'm trying to collect incidents + horror stories.. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a few interesting ones, a few boring ones but I NEED MORE !!!
Search and seizure.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too hard (Score:4, Interesting)
Whilst I liked visiting the USA, its increasing stance against visitors is becoming too invasive to care anymore.
The first time I was forced to electronically store my fingerprints on your systems for an unknown period of time was the start of the end.
How wrong we were to assume that bio passports were enough to subdue to spooks.
Have a 'nice' day!
HR6702 (Score:5, Informative)
Sec 2(a)(1) sums it up nicely:
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no search of the digital contents of the device or media may be based on the power of the United States to search a person and that person's possessions upon entry into the United States, unless that search is based on a reasonable suspicion regarding that person.
Streetlight effect (Score:5, Insightful)
I forget where I read it, but I recently a news article that mentioned the "Streetlight Effect".
We all know the classic joke. A man is walking down the street when he sees a drunk, on his knees, looking for something under a streetlight. The man stops and asks, "What are you looking for?" and the drunk replies. "My keys." So the man gets down on his knees to help him find his keys.
After a half-hour of fruitless searching the man asks, "Well, where did you lose them?" and the drunk replies, "Over in that alley, but the light's better over here."
This sort of security theater [wikipedia.org] reminds me of that joke.
We can't find Bin Laden. We can't stop al Qaeda. We can't (won't) secure our borders with Mexico. But we damn well make air travel a living hell for millions of innocent air travelers because, well, the light's better over here.
Re:Streetlight effect (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the drunk is actually looking for his keys.
DHS couldn't find it's own ass with a map and a flashlight.
Parent
Perhaps a little resistance is in order? (Score:4, Interesting)
How many low-rent laptops could be crammed with utterly useless information and sent back and forth, back and forth across the US border? Like any basically stupid, attack-trained creature these border-control idiots occasionally have to learn the lesson that when you piss off the boss too often, there are going to be consequences.
Thousands of man-hours wasted on trivia and the inevitable reaming they'll will eventually get from their elected masters, hopefully the loss of some upper-level jobs...now there's some consequences.
Being held accountable is the only thing these fascist half-wits really worry about.
There is also this part to consider... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone quotes the Constitution and argues law.
Perhaps it would be better to consider a quotation from the Declaration of Independence. Remember that document? The one that put the whole lot of dirty laundry out for all to see and said:
"We Aren't Going to Stand for This Anymore"
(quotes, ed.)
Decades of abuse by a government out of control were a major cause of a war for independence. Could these same abuses, now at the hands of the current government be the seeds for a true revolution?
Looking back over the decades of dirty politics and lies perpetrated by America's elected officials and their bureaucracies, I am able to see at least some glimmer of acting in the common good. I'm not saying that it was all proper and that it was not often criminal. I am saying that I see nothing in the last 20 years that was done for any purpose but to line the pockets of a politician or corporation at our expense and to our detriment.
As though the rape of our financial well being is not sufficient, now the government seeks to remove any and all means to communicate in privacy, and to do without due process or allowing us any capability to seek redress.
I think that perhaps you should all read the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps with a mind for a couple slight updates? I think we need to publish a new one.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
Much as I agree that there will probably be a change in course, rights, once take away, are very slow to return. I can foresee that a new president keen to lose his 'inexperienced' image would be reluctant to take that strong a stand against the powers that be at Langley, etc.
Except that you've NEVER had any rights when it comes to custom's searches.
Sorry, you can't blame this one on Bush. As much as you'd like to.
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, you can't blame this one on Bush. As much as you'd like to.
But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush, or more appropriately, the people that voted for him. Before all the hysteria, it I was clean, they had to let me go. Not any more. Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
"But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush" ...and completely irrelevant to the topic, which is search and seizure when entering the US. Please go to a relevant story to bash Bush.
Who are the morons modding this as 'insightful'? What is this, moveon.org?
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.
Wow. First to see that in a post that isn't clearly a troll, and then to see it modded +5? Slashdot's really turning into Digg.
Frankly, your post is one of the most absurd ones I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Pretty soon you'll be criticising people for not posting at all, like they're trying to hide their opinions from the Slashdot masses. Then you'll be mugging them. I've seen these scary, slippery slopes before.
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
Experience, sonny. I've watched them tear apart my car more than once. I've been flagged for not having a credit card and checked luggage. I've bought my tickets less than 24 hours before departure, with, god forbid, cash! Evidently I fit a "profile". While all their smuggler and "terrorist" buddies wizz on through for answering all their questions "correctly". They are goons. I don't care if you think it's troll. It's the truth. And it ain't pretty.
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be surprised if the government here in GB plays along for long. Privacy, surveillance and the database state are becoming big issues here right now, both legally and politically, while support for the US throwing its weight around is a pretty universal vote-loser, all of which are bad news for a government so weak it can barely stand up. I expect a significant change in approach in time for the next general election in a couple of years, if not sooner if they give their current leader the boot and find yet another one after the summer recess.
In any case, the government doesn't have much choice about European data protection rules, which our businesses are bound to follow regardless of the government saying nice things to the US. There are already concerns in the business press about issues such as more distributed data storage and processing facilities, which can't be set up in locations that don't adhere to the same data protection standards as European law requires without jumping through hoops with customers and/or incurring negative PR. The US is one such location.
And even without legal obligations, the costs and risks associated with travel to the US are reaching the point that a lot of businesses will no longer make the trip. There have already been reports of business people being refused entry for the most stupid of reasons because of so-called anti-terrorist measures, and as I said before, it probably won't take more than a few high profile leaks after business laptops went missing while containing confidential data to start a serious backlash. Make it impossible to transfer data securely via the Internet as well, and the US just became one of the most business-hostile countries in the Western world, and no amount of sucking up by European governments is going to make European businesses run risks they don't need to in the current economic climate. Many of those that don't have well-established, substantial operations in the US will probably just give up on it until sanity returns.
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
You're kidding yourself if you seriously think Obama or McCain are going to so much as lift a finger to change this. Both of them believe in rule by the government, for the government. Why the hell would they want to fight to gain the powers of the US president only to give them up to the people?
Plus I assume you are referring to Obama, but lets not forget he voted for FISA. We as a people need to figure it out that charismatic != honest and to take whatever either candidate says with a very large grain of salt. Remember, they only care about your vote and will gladly promise you the moon to get it. You'd think we would have learned this with President Bush II promising us a classical conservative utopia yet delivering a neo-conservative hell, but I guess we're all a little slow on the uptake.
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
the best taxes are the ones that are labelled 'temporary', those are most certain to never disappear.
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
"he next administration (assuming Obama wins) will probably be more interested in taking away our "treasure"."
Actually I hate to be the one to break it to you but your treasure is already gone. what is likely to happen is your going to get the bill for it by the next president.
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and the other party will not stop pointing out how the Democrats increased taxes (to pay for it all) and people will buy into it electing Republican again in 4 years who then will continue to rape your rights and take your money. (Democrats and Republicans can be easily changed above)
As long as people do not start voting for an alternative, there will be no alternative. If you say that voting for an alternative will not work, please repair your democratic system before you try to export it.
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tax and spend" meets "borrow and spend." Who do you think will be paying for the Bush years, a leprechaun with a pot of gold?
It's not that the Bush admin had zero interest in being the party of balanced budgets, they had negative interest! Pushed the throttle all the way, man - he robbed you, me and everybody else. Record deficits, and do you think the Bush tax cuts would somehow never come home to roost? The perfect setup, "We Republicans cut your taxes, and look what the Democrats did they raised taxes." Well, duh.
Republican politicians know their constituency; people like you have short memories, no sense of history, and will vote 'em right back in to rob us all over again.
Parent
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would say sooner. What a lot of people have suggested to me is that the Bush administration wanted spending up to make it look like the economy was healthy, just until he got out of office. That is why they looked the other way whilst people were tossing out cheap credit. I think the Republicans want to lose this election so the bomb drops on a Democrat's watch.
Basically, he deliberately maxed out Obama's credit card for him and remortgaged the house, with the plan to later on call him fiscally irresponsible.
Parent
Re:Bush took away our "treasure" (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid exceed the entire military AND discretional [sic] budget (not just the Iraq war) and all are horribly broken.
Think how many countries we could occupy if we weren't wasting all our money on social programs!
[I]f you really want fiscally responsible policies... vote them all out of office and start taking care of yourself for a change.
Since you make the "start taking care of yourself" suggestion in contrast to the "knee-jerk, liberally biased" programs such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, I'll just say that you and I -- and everyone else -- were born naked and helpless. We depended on others to provide us with food, shelter and clothing until we could provide for ourselves. The condition of our births was in no way a result of any planning, effort or desire on our own parts. We did not earn the ability to take care of ourselves through our own virtue or labors, and our continued good fortune is only partly within our own power to ensure.
Parent
Re:constitution...? (Score:5, Informative)
Although, for purposes of border control, almost any search is considered lawful.
Parent
Save the Children: Watch out for the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
In our (as a country) fear of Terrorism and our fear for the safety of our children, we are slowly strangling ourselves of our vitality. Soon, we as a country will be like scared little children hiding under our beds from a thunderstorm. And in the meantime, the rest of the World will eventually pass us by.
Parent
Re:Save the Children: Watch out for the terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
From here [cnet.com]: At a Senate hearing in June, Larry Cunningham, a New York prosecutor who is now a law professor, defended laptop searches--but not necessarily seizures--as perfectly permissible. Preventing customs agents from searching laptops "would open a vulnerability in our border by providing criminals and terrorists with a means to smuggle child pornography or other dangerous and illegal computer files into the country," Cunningham said.
What I want to know is who exactly "smuggles" child pornography around on a laptop. They may have it on their laptop, but they're not "smuggling" it into the country. They more than likely downloaded it from someplace that's already accessible to anyone in the country anyway.
You may be able to prosecute them for it, but it's not going to save any children. Anyone that wants it will just hide it better, and you'll end up arresting people that have a suspect image or three in their browser cache that they've probably never even seen. This is just more bullshit fear-mongering to further strip us of our liberties.
Parent