Appeals Court Affirms Warrantless Computer Searches 390
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"Laptop computers and other digital devices carried into the US may be seized from travelers without a warrant and sent to a secondary site for forensic inspection, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week. The ruling is the second in less than a year that allows the US government to conduct warrantless, offsite searches of digital devices seized at the country's borders. A federal court in Michigan last May issued a similar ruling in a case challenging the constitutionality of the warrantless seizure of a computer at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Several other courts, including the Ninth Circuit itself, have ruled that warrantless, suspicion-less searches of laptops and other digital devices can take place at US border locations."
winning the war on tourism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would be surprised how many non-slashdotters do not think of it. Do not assume that because it is obvious to you it is to everybody.
Re:winning the war on tourism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does this bother any other travellers? (Score:4, Insightful)
I travel internationally frequently on business as do many of my friends and colleges. Of the over 50 total trips I'm aware of my circle of acquaintances taking, never once has anyone been stopped for a warrantless computer search. While there are certainly personal liberty concerns related to presumption of guilt/innocence or guilt by association, the practical reality is that unless you're a friend of Julian Assange, you're not likely to ever encounter this.
And even this friend of Julian Assange was not forced to divulge his encryption key and had his laptop returned. (http://randomchaos.us/hacking/another-hacker%E2%80%99s-laptop-cell-phones-searched-at-border.html)
So if you are concerned about the potential of these searches, encryption may be a more practical way to feel safer.
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's okay. In five years, computers will probably be shipping with full disk encryption enabled by default anyway. The risk of data theft and identity theft from unencrypted laptops walking away is simply too great.
Personally... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is the purpose exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
...at which point they'll pass a law making it a crime.
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex offenders: the new jews? (Score:5, Insightful)
WHOAH, how is that fact even relevant? Even convicted criminals have civil rights. Just because you find this guy personally repugnant doesn't mean that he isn't a person under the constitution.
Replace 'sex offender' with the word 'jew' and try to repeat your statement without sounding like a Nazi. Go on, I dare you.
What we need is a Consitutional ammendment on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the way the government is behaving today and the way the courts are acting, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional amendment is going to protect our property against unreasonable searches and seizures. But something like that would probably never get the 2/3 majority it would need in Congress.
Re:Sex offenders: the new jews? (Score:2, Insightful)
Replace 'sex offender' with the word 'jew' and try to repeat your statement without sounding like a Nazi. Go on, I dare you.
Except that there's a big difference in being a convicted criminal vs. an ethic or religious class. Or there should be.
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad what we threw away in the War on Drugs
Yeah, such as a snowball's chance in hell of solving any drug problems.
Imprisoning a million people for non-violent offences and turning them into hardened criminals isn't exactly the greatest crime-fighting strategy ever devised. Especially when it costs 55,000 USD per person per year. But then why bother trying to improve recividism rates when, with privatised prisons, you have a financial incentive to keep as many people in prison as possible?
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:5, Insightful)
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
What kind I wonder? The term has been diluted to meaninglessness by systematic abuse.
- Guy who sent nude pictures to their girlfriend before they were 18?
- Guy who called a coworker a stupid cunt?
- Guy who downloaded bad drawings from the Internet?
- Guy who downloaded bad pictures from the Internet?
- Guy who flashed children?
- Guy who raped children?
Re:winning the war on tourism (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, if it weren't for Jean Chretien more or less giving the finger to the U.S. after 9/11, Canadians at least would still be able to cross the border relatively hassle-free.
JTF2 was in Afghanistan before anyone but the CIA. How exactly is that "giving the finger to the US"? Or do you just like using abstract, metaphorical claims to hide the absence of factual content behind your position?
Chretien declined to get Canada involved in Iraq, showing more sense and guts than many other Western leaders. Given how close our ties are to the US it was a damned gutsy move, and most Canadians are deeply grateful for it.
Re:Sex offenders: the new jews? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's not like anyone would ever force Jewish people to be tatoo'd with an identification number or anything...
-Rick
Re:"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's crazy on several levels.
First, the actual border between the U.S. and international waters is several miles out. The place where water meets shore is not actually the border.
Second, people living "on the coast" aren't literally on the coast, they are unambiguously on the U.S. side of the border, but "on" in that context means "adjacent to". So it's basically a pun on two different uses of the word "on".
Third and most ridiculously, the definition of border they are using includes being 50 miles from the border!
So even if we took the actual land/water line to be the border, and accepted the metaphorical usage of "on" in the phrase "I live on the coast in California".... If you were living 50 miles away from the coast, you wouldn't say "I live on the coast"! You'd say "I live an hour away from the coast."
That's why it's crazy.
Re:What we need is a Consitutional ammendment on t (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would a new amendment make any more difference than the ones we already have?