Homeland Security: We Can Still Search You, But We’ll Be Nicer

Nothing like having your rights stripped away.

bustedchain

@The Squid: That is exactly what I was thinking. Keep the laptop and cellphones while the data is safely stored in a DVD or thumbdrive.

hacku

@SomeYoungGuy: woah woah woah. This is *all* George Bush's fault. How could you even make a case that Obama has anything to do with this?

@Skunky: Email or FTP always works.

hacku

I have known about this for a while now, and I've always wanted to know what would happen if something confidential goes missing or finds itself out in the wild.

For example, you have a business plan and designs for some new widget. Then your machine is searched and all of a sudden that new widget finds its way onto the market long before you have done the prototype. Now what? Can you go after the guy that searched it for theft? Would the police even attempt to follow up?

Of course the obvious rebuttal is, 'don't carry that stuff with you on your laptop' but how practical is that really. The point of a laptop is for use as a business tool. It should be expected that it contain confidential business materials if the purpose of your visit is to carry on that business.

diverguy

Does it really take 5 Dasys to search a cam or mobile phone.

And if the real criminals know this. Wouldn't they use a Blackberry or self "cleaning" HDD. Just saying if the are cyberterrorist, they would be that easy to catch.

If it was me, I'd claim my 8900 stolen, get another and remote wipe. Then, when they believed they'll broken it, I'll ask to be reimbursed. (Muh hahaha) Um... Sorry

streetceltic

@jedimaster0103: But if you're trying to BRING it home? The blueprints, that is... >

@dfxdeimos:
-OR-

Leave your building blueprints and kiddie porn at home.

jedimaster0103

@weatherman: Actually there is encryption strong enough the government can't break it. At least there's nothing in the DoJ that can break it. There was a case of a man who was suspected of having kiddie porn on his Laptop who had used encryption. He refused to give up his key for the encryption. It brought this up as a 5th amendment issue to a federal court. Thankfully the court upheld that divulging a password is giving testimony against yourself. The DoJ had his system for nearly a year while all this was being settled and never broke the encryption.

MrEvil

@OMG! Ponies!: Here's the difference: There is a limit to the amount of physical information you can carry over a border. Perhaps one box of physical files.

The scope of the data that is getting seized today in a laptop is far beyond what was orginally contemplated by the Border Exception.

A laptop may have hundreds of GB of data, which may belong to your employer and which may include trade secrets or other sensitive business data worth millions or billions of dollars which the government has no right to, and which I don't believe they have the skills to protect once they've taken control of the laptop or copied the data from it.

Zanzan42

@Razta: Depends. Did you "forget" it?

Encrypt your hard drive with TruCrypt and have a strong password (which you should anyways).

-OR-

When you travel overseas use it as a thin client and connect back to your work / home machine to retrieve the data you need.

Problem solved.

[DFX] Deimos

I'd love to be a wedding photog shooting in a foreign country and this BS happens when you return...better get some fine print in the contract with the bride and MOB!

al12345

@met2art:
TSA: "We ain't found SHIT!"

@OMG! Ponies!: As a whole, I think you're right - the right to search at the border is legal and settled. However, I think you're being a bit misleading. First, the quote you provided is from the US v Ramsey case in 1977, and so is disconnected from the 1st Congress. Moreover, you should be aware that the 1st Congress authorized customs searches at the border without cause or suspicion. I very much doubt that the Framers of the Constitution wished to convey to the government the right to search and seize their personal diaries indefinitely. (It's now 30 days as a matter of policy, not law.)

In order to detain a person at the border for a prolonged duration, there must be some cause, so I don't know why laptops or other equipment which does not appear to violate any customs law should be seized for anything longer than the person is.

You may argue that it takes longer to search the contents of a laptop. This is true, which is why I believe there was a legal case (or decision) that likened electronic files not to paper but to something entirely intangible and thus unsearchable. There is some validity to this since you cannot reasonably believe that a person would take "printouts" of all of the files on their computer with them on an international business trip.

Also note that there are issues with regard to copyright, intellectual property, nondisclosure agreements, ..., attorney-client privilege, medical privacy, etc that can come into play. For instance, can a border agent legally browse patient files on a doctor's laptop that are protected by privacy laws? The gov't may argue that the border is a lawless zone, but this is obviously not the case.

Lastly, and most importantly, even if it is entirely legal now, that fact does not necessarily have to hold true in the future. It is a democracy after all. :)

Now can they make you give up your truecrypt key?

Razta

@COCOViper: Guess I can remove that USB drive with a copy of Papillon out of my alimentary canal.

@PMZanetti: I agree 100%... and this is why, when I travel, my laptop is 100% drive-encrypted with Truecrypt, and using the Hidden Operating System and pre-boot authentication methods. My passwords are several words long, with alphanumeric characters.

When asked to boot, I do, and the bios displays. When asked to "unlock it" I decline. The laptop was once taken by TSA agents for over two hours, and I was repeatedly asked (then ordered) to decrypt it, but I refused. I told them they could not log in, nor would I provide the password under any circumstance, whatsoever, especially considering they had no just cause or reasonable need for it. After several hours I was released, and given my laptop but very firmly ordered never to travel with an encrypted system that they can't inspect. It was subtly suggested that they have the right to order me to decrypt my system on command, and that use of encyption to block random searches borders upon illegal.

While the US government tries to impose the fear of terrorism upon the citizenry, they are far more fearful of citizens who impose the same methods upon the government. Using encryption ought to be standard procedure. In reality, those of us who use it are looked upon with suspicion and treated as criminals until we remove all safeguards and security and allow random and unwarranted searches by so-called security experts. The government can't (and shouldn't)have it both ways.

@ghackett: FileVault

Thank god for crypto!

This shit better not happen to me when I leave to go on tour in Europe/Japan ... I'll be fucking furious.

"Keeping Americans safe is not really our job... oh, wait, I wasn't supposed to say that... you'll edit that out won't you?"

taodude

@Benny: How about you guys?

@Benny: I totally forgot to include this...

@wingbatwu: Look sir, droid!

It IS unreasonable.
That would be like being pulled over and have your children randomly psycho-analyzed just in case you were abusing them.

The thing they 'claim' to be looking for isn't something you want to have going on, but they are treating it like it were SARS.

Just another excuse so they can't be videotaped during brutality. (The recordings they're REALLY worried about)

This is a great plan! Because you know, TERRORISTS have never heard of USB thumb drives, the internet, or Truecrypt.

(sarcasm off)

Dumbest plan ever. The terrorists know that the US customs is doing this. They would be first rate idiots to keep any sensitive data on a laptop. And we know they are not idiots, but really calm calculated and very patient fanatical lunatics.... but not stupid.

I completely agree that this is unreasonable search, but as long as they're taking our civil liberties away anyway, why can't they just pop out your hard drive, clone it, and send you on your way? I'm practically positive that people have lost work or jobs over this and that's the last thing we need right now.

Nobody needs to smuggle data when they can simply ship it through any number of international carriers. This is nothing more than a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

Sean Masters

@thebigcheese: I was thinking exactly the same thing.

You could circumvent this so easily it's ridiculous. I don't know how the search actually works, but it sounds like you could even just store your data on a DVD in another bag, and they'll search the computer and forget the disc.

I've got a 7 year old 17" Toshiba monster that seems to get pulled out for a "terrorism swab" every time I fly with it, but they have never turned it on or held it for longer than a minute or two.

@thebigcheese: Border protection -- 5 days. Customs -- 30 days.

This is bullshit. Anyone who really want to smuggle data through security could do it so easily. This might catch some people with child pornography, maybe, but is that really the job of DHS and the TSA? No.

As bad as that shit is is it worth having my files poked through by some assholes at the airport? No.

Is kiddie-porn going to take down the airplane I'm on? No. Are they going to crash their Jpegs into a nuclear powerplant? No.

So what the fuck?

You're goddamned right this violates the fourth amendment. Any random search is an unreasonable search.

TheCrudMan

@wingbatwu: You win.

@OMG! Ponies!:

Personally the point for me isn't whether it's legal (you're right since it's on the border they can pretty much do as they please) but rather whether it accomplishes anything.

Lets be honest- through use of encryption programs, obscure filehosting sites/tools and the simple volume of data on the internet- if any geek worth his weight wants to move some data across international borders, they wouldn't need to physically transport it. This is not 1960 guys.

COCOViper

@ChaosCon: TrueCrypt anyone?

I thinks its ridiculous especially if they have to do random laptop/cell phone searches to avoid being accused of profiling. DHS is not the CIA or FBI and without probable cause, such as know ties to terrorism, I agree that this type of search is a Fourth Amendment violation.

Curtis Dietrick

Man.....if they took my laptop and beat my high score on Peggle.....

ottermann want's a Snickers

@robbo: Well put. That's the most effective argument against this. Sure, we can argue about their carefree violations of our privacy, but not terrorism, kiddy porn or anything else is a good enough reason to pull this. They can't possibly think they're actually going to find anything threatening out in the open like that.

@atheos: some terrorists go as far as putting their data inside droids and then send them in the middle of the frakkin desert!

wingbatwu

@BigRocket: Yeah, exactly. Go ahead and search me, fine; I've got nothing to hide. But, make it quick! None of this 30 days, business!

If I were a terrorist, I'd just make an image of my hard drive, put it somewhere online, fly to U.S., buy some cheap junk PC from Best Buy and download & restore my hard drive image. But I guess some people are just dumb enough to carry all those bomb instructions, plans and schematics with them. And if I had an actual bomb, I most certainly wouldn't put it in a camera or a laptop...

I am OK with the search, not the seizure.

BigRocket

So... adding "respectively" doesn't really clarify what you are talking about when you mention 2 maximum days, but 3 different items. It also doesn't work when it's that far away from what you are referring to, assuming you are referring to the items.

thebigcheese

@architectman: You're right. Between the time I read the article and all of the comments I somehow came to the conclusion it was the TSA and not border control that was involved. In that case, yeah, you're pretty screwed. Your options are to allow the confiscation or not enter the country. Or do you even get that option?

One word, two syllables... TrueCrypt

ghackett

@OMG! Ponies!: Oooh - very nice statement :) I'm much more informed. It still seems to me that this type of action is rather silly though, as someone could simply email (or for the very security minded SSH in) any "controversial" material. Not trying to invalidate your point or raise a stink or anything - this was just the first thing that popped into my head :)

ChaosCon

@KonradBear: I think the one thing preventing them from planting evidence on your laptop is that... IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE.

Not that it's beyond a weirdo to do it just because, but why would they plant evidence on an unsuspecting person? Would they need to plant evidence on your laptop to justify catching you with 5 kilos of cocaine?

I don't like the idea of this anymore than the next guy, but the fear of planted evidence is the least of my concerns.

DustyButtâ„¢

@OMG! Ponies!: +1 I think this post should be cut and pasted into every conversation on this topic. At least it gives everyone a base to argue from rather than having the argument fly into visceral hate and contempt for government intrusion - and ultimately general paranoia.

These searches are only done at the border and it's been legal since the early formation of our country. One of the first thing this country did in her formation was to create this authority (screw you King George!!) way back in 1789

MessyQ

@OMG! Ponies!: Well it's still true.

I hate security at airports, but since I've got nothing to hide, I don't mind all that much. I'm sure I'd disagree if they took my MacBook, but that would be in anger.

@clR3vv: No, you still need a warrant to search anyone's private property for any evidence of a crime.

@[xkcd.com]
That's how they would do it. Not with some super special extraterrestrial magical amazing super computer they acquired from The Old Ones or something.

@mths: In all fairness, I just cut and pasted a lot of what I wrote last time when people were getting in a tizzy about the Border Exception and the TSA's plenary right to search without warrant or even probable cause.

@Tim Wayne: I disagree. This is about Border and Customs searches, not the TSA. I think the TSA are snooping for flight safety issues.

architectman

@OMG! Ponies!: You beat me too it, and typed about 4524508 times more than I planned. So... +4524508

That's why you're well known here: Because you know what you're talking about.

The one thing I don't think anyone mentioned is how weak our border security is in the first place. If someone had some truly nefarious information or items that they needed to get into the U.S. there are thousands of points on our northern & southern borders where they could simply hand carry it. They'd NEVER see the TSA, Border Patrol... No one.

Rules like this completely miss the point.

DustyButtâ„¢

@Elliuotatar: I think a point of clarification needs to be made here and throughout the comments section. TSA does not do border searches. TSA does not have Border Search Authority to conduct these searches. I think the only agency in federal government with this authority is Customs and Border Protection.

MessyQ

WTF? It takes them 30 days to search a phone? No wonder they keep making me late for my flights.

architectman

4th Amendment + 2nd Amendment = interesting time at the airport.

Most of us would agree it is reasonable to search for weapons at the security check in because having arms on-board a plane is a threat to air safety. It should follow that searching your laptop at the airport only be done if DHS has a reasonable suspicion that the data on your laptop represents a threat to air safety.

Nevertheless, opting to defend your laptop from unreasonable search by invoking your right to bear arms is frowned upon and is considered an airport etiquete faux pas.

It was wrong during the Bush administration, it's still wrong during the Obama administration.

SomeYoungGuy

@Shivaran: Not necessarily, many companies make employees encrypt confidential data on laptops.

I was stopped at the Canada/U.S. border entering the U.S. for a "random search". I had to pull my car in and they let the sniffer dog leap around inside my car. Meanwhile, I was brought into a building; taking my laptop, phone, media player, and paperwork. I just sat it all down on the cold metal table in front of two agents that looked as though they were going to question me (they were armed with 9mm Glocks).
I did not do this thinking I had nothing to hide; I did it to disarm them, confuse them, as this is not part of their training. They only asked me three questions: birth place, why I was in Canada, and what my destination was.
Note: they did not touch or open any of my gear, as that would infringe on some aspect of the 4th Amendment as I placed it before them (to my novice understanding).
This is not a defensive/offensive tactic; they have an intention that can be short-circuited before it begins. I learned this from a pilot. Since then, I have done this at locations in the EU and Eastern Europe to mainly the same blank response.
Dump your stuff in their lap and it looks like a great deal of work, which they may or may not be willing to undertake. So far my ratio is 95% no touch, 5% only open one package to ask what it is. I carry a great deal of audio equipment with me, too.
Honestly, I am not sure what to define this psychological reaction as.

sonophy

Here's my good deed for the day: BORDER SEARCHES DO NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT

The rules regarding search-and-seizure has always been that border searches require no warrant. There are some areas of the country that have always been permitted to play by different rules. Military bases are one. "Borders" are another.

The First Congressional Congress made it legal.

"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."

Authorized by the First Congress,88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops.

This type of search and seizure at the border is legal. It has been legal for decades. It is not Marxist nor Socialist nor is it truly the product of 9/11. It is a search and seizure which is an exception - known as the Border Exception - and it is an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.

If you are interested read the Supreme Court case: United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).

As the Ninth Circuit very intelligently decided in US v. Arnold, the files on your computer are cargo. There is no functional difference between a document you typed into Word and the printout. Imagine you had a locked box that you refused to open. They'd seize the box.

The printout is subject to search; the file is the exact same thing. Airports are borders. Different standard applies.

Many things are legal and constitution that may give you the wicked heebie-jeebies. If a city wants to install security cameras in all of its parks to watch for crime, that's not a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights as you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park. Does it go against the original intent of the Constitution? Probably. Is it Constitutionally-permissible? Yes.

The Border Exception is nothing new, is legal and constitutional, and has its basis in the genesis of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if they're look for child pornography, bomb schematics, or a kugel recipe. Your computer may be searched at the border.

@Preyfar: I'm totally with you on that, comrade.

And the Patriot Act is along the same lines, hiding its true meaning behind a cloak of jingoism. Very 1984, very inappropriate.

jdale

@Paul Combs: Agreed

@AlvaGauze: Border Search Authority has been around for a very very long time and each sovereign nation has their own form of it. You seem to be under the impression that you did have a right and that it was taken away where there was no right to unreasonable search and seizure to begin with at the border. There is a reason why the fourth and ninth circuit (the liberal ninth circuit!) struck down the their respective electronic search appeals. Throughout all courts, it is upheld that Border Search is either an exemption to or outside of Fourth Amendment protections. It might suck, but to have a sovereign country you probably should be free to search any material entering otherwise why bother inspecting anything coming through our borders because getting probable cause for each container or shipment is not only impractical but impossible.

MessyQ

Considering that there's no discernible oversight, what's to keep DHS from planting evidence on seized devices?

Since you're unlikely to create an image of your laptop's hard drive with verifiable witnesses to the act, there's absolutely no way to prove you didn't have prosecutable evidence on your seized device prior to it being confiscated.

Wide open road for abuse of power and typical of my country's fear based abolishing of freedoms that make it a better place than the countries people left to start a new life here.

KonradBear

It's not necessarily the searching I have a problem with, it is the fact that the Border Patrol, and anyone else for that matter, can do it without any reasonable suspicion...

Paul Combs

Only 1000 searches over 200million travellers? Even if you estimate that only 10% of those carry laptops you still get a statistically insignificant number... So why do it anyway?? Basically they admit they can't search all of them and the way they do pretty much means squat... The only reason I can think of is that they are actually looking for the latest 24 episode to popup somewhere...

Entaum

Not exactly. This is US Customs, not the TSA. TSA is charged with making sure passengers aren't bringing anything in that can cause problems during a flight. Customs is a whole different ballgame- way more than just flight safety. I still agree with you that this can cross the line, but at least it's part of the job Customs was designed to do.

VidorMoirae

People need to grow up yesterday and realize that the "threat" to our security is a fraud. Stop believing the television and start READING. This is how governments act at the height of tyranny.

Everything is not fine, sorry to say.

@Saboth: I've always felt the usage of "homeland" had this Soviet "FOR MOTHER RUSSIA!" feeling with a cold war vibe.

Fritz you crack me up. You actually think voting works and actually accomplishes anything? Man, you got bigger problems than laptops at the border! The People have been bought and paid for just like their representatives.

VidarScuderi

@Danny Allen: You say you're against unwarranted searches and that there are privacy concerns, but you also roll-over and say "I guess I'm OK with it" when the DHS claims that only 1000 laptops were searched (unwarranted, since all border searches are effectively can be done without a warrant).

This is exactly how government agencies sneak in invasive policies. First it was to combat terrorism: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight terrorism? Then it was to fight kiddy porn: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight kiddy porn? Next, though, it'll be ACTA and we'll want to fight that, even if it's 1 outta 200M, but the policy will already be thoroughly in place by then.

phoomp

I'm not ok with it. It's against the law, regardless of what they say. It violates our constitutional rights, regardless of any "homeland security" bs they have on the books.

Saboth

I second that: the apparent fact that there needs to be no probable cause to seize and search that laptop begs abuse. And, having been through airport security many times, TSA people don't seem very professional to me. That "rent-a-cop" moniker seems to fit what I've been witness to. A quick search turns up lots of examples. Here's one: http://cbs2chicago.com/investigations/xrated.security.screenings.2.777423.html

ShirinCoates

@CaptainSquishy: This isn't about morality, this is about the safety of hundreds of lives. They already let you drink alcohol and act like an ass already, so long as you do not endanger the lives of the passengers. I don't see how someone who smokes pot or sniffs cocaine is any worse.

@SquareBubbles: ACLU is throwing money away trying to fight a Fourth Amendment case here. There is no Fourth Amendment protection in the case of a border search - only area of contention is whether or not a search is deemed routine or non routine. In the case of the non routine search Border Agents (not TSA!) only require "reasonable suspicion". Since searching data is non-invasive, ie it's not a body-cavity search, it is found by the circuit courts to be just routine. Routine inspection requires NO level of suspicion. When it comes to the border, different rules apply.

MessyQ

@mikekearn: Hehe, fair (and disturbing) point. It's a customs thing more than flight safety issue, though.

Wake up Sheeple! There is no constitutional basis for this; they do it because they say they can, and you all just sit there quietly. I have followed this issue since Arnold's 9'th circuit appeal, which left the founding fathers rolling in their graves. What's the next freedom you're going to just 'roll over' on?

When I think of all the tears, sweat, and blood (especially blood) shed to make and maintain the country I was born in (which is gone now) I just want to cry. You gave it away so easily.

AlvaGauze

@EganAstypalaea: They'll just be seized too! You should implant tinfoil directly in your skull!

@OttavioPinprick: Scarily enough, yes, from what I've read. Potentially any electronic device apparently, and they can ask for encryption passwords, etc.

@Michael Singletary: Huh? I clarified that I'm against unwarranted searches way before you posted.

@Tim Wayne: As I understand it, it is at the arrival, not prior to the flight that the requisition occurs.

They don't care about the flight per se but about letting in potential Al Qaida pedophiles.

Because I don't see how nuclear bomb blueprints in PDF could endanger the plane anyway.

"I guess I'm OK with it."

This is a HUGE problem and contributes to letting the government get away with this sort of crap. You shouldn't be OK with a violation of privacy like this.

What's worse is that you don't even seem to care much, despite writing an article about it. You could at least be confident in your decision to support it instead of taking a "whatever" attitude. That's the problem with America. People don't care enough.

Michael Singletary

@Elliuotatar: On the other hand, if the TSA finds heavily encripted data, shouldn't it tip them off that this data might not be very legal?
I don't know the laws about encryption in the US, but in France it is heavily restricted.

Not saying that prying into private data without reason is right or efficient...

It's a violation of Constitutional rights. It doesn't make anybody more secure. Data doesn't need physical transport. And if you were attempting to bring in "subversive" data you sure wouldn't be sticking it on your phone or laptop. This is both meaningless and unlawful. It should be resisted and it should be repealed.

So there.

Grrr. This kind of thing is an insult to the soul of America. This is the real story - health care is just another distraction.

PaddyDugan

@kmccoy: Slightly off topic, but in regard to your DVDs, from the DMCA: "section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying."

You can copy your disks to your computer to watch as long as you own the disks, but it is illegal for anyone to make any way for you to do this.

cattrain

@Tim Wayne: So you would also agree with the pot smoker's and cocaine snufflers in an airplane. Good going sir!

@Tim Wayne: That is the most disturbingly hilarious way to put something that I also happen to completely agree with. Congratulations, sir.

Everyone get out the tinfoil hats!!!!!

EganAstypalaea

@killaW0lf04: that's what the government wants you to believe... :)

I'm not saying every TSA rentacop has the capability, I just think that if the government found a laptop that they really wanted to get the information from, they'd probably be able to do it.

@Dearhaw: Different rules apply at the border. Warrants are not needed.

@.- -. --- -. -.-- -- --- ..- ... / .. ... / .-.. . --. .. --- -.: Why do you think we are the primary target for terrorists? We've had a big one, yes, and a couple small ones, but nothing like Israel. Or Iraq, for that matter. Question your assumptions.

I see that comments pointing out the ridiculousness of the comment of "I guess I'm OK with it" are being promoted, so I won't rehash that. Even though I wanted to.

I'd actually like to point out that this is very much a good time to use Truecrypt and its hidden volumes. I do not advocate theft of media such as movies or television shows, but I have plenty of DVDs ripped to hard drive (technically illegal, perhaps, because of the content protection removal, but I think morally acceptable.) If I'm traveling and I want to take a couple with me, I'll put them in the hidden partition of a truecrypt file, and then put a bunch of legitimate financial files and maybe software registration codes and stuff in the non-hidden partition. There's no clear law, from what I know, that they can't force you to turn over your password for encrypted files at a border crossing. In fact, I just generally assume I have no rights at a border crossing. This way, I can give them a password that works, unlocks files that they can see as a legitimate reason to use encryption, and be on my way.

(This isn't to say that I disagree with the state of not having any rights at border crossings. It's just that there are only so many violations of freedom that I can protest at once.)

@weatherman: Just how easy do u think breaking an encryption code is? Some encrypted files are considered to be unbreakable given reasonable time since the number of possibilities for finding encryption key can be huge (yes even for a super computer)

killaW0lf04

@weatherman: Our government does not have some super-secret, magic computer (a la Superman 3) that can do more than any other computer. They just don't. The NSA probably has the best---banks of networked super computers---but computers all work along the same principles. Brute-force decrypting techniques can tie up a computer farm for weeks or months.

The thing about reality is that the rules of reality always apply.

Can they also demand to read data on USB keys and (non-commercial) CD-Roms/ DVDs?

Makes running an unusual OS more attractive - just to make it harder/ more costly for them...

OttavioPinprick

"Given those numbers, I guess I'm OK with it. As long as it's only the terrorism and kiddy porn stuff they're after."

Bullshit. I don't care if some guy on the plane has actual photographs of donkeys having sex with six year old girls - it is not a flight safety issue, which, ostensibly, is why they are snooping through our stuff.

Bombs. Not contraband. Get it through your head.

this has always been and continues to be ridiculous!
taking a Laptop or Camera away from someone without any wrongdoing is truly outrageous.
Whatabout data privacy, copyrights etc. what "policy" is in place to protect highly confidential content? Companies had to implement stringent rules fr travellers that waste many hours of removing any confidential content from Laptops for anyone travelling to the US - has anyone thought of the impact and cost of this?
Worse case (if you're lucky and your one of those 1000) you leave your Laptop behind at the Border control and then what? can't conduct your business properly as you have no Laptop...
Of that tourist coming over for a week or so just to leave the camera behind...

Sorry but in all due respect and with all my understanding and support to fight terrorism, this is just ridiculous. I can't see any sense in such activities other than the silly "show muscles" - my country, my rules, i have the saying - kindergarden crap...

WenonaEnceladus

they mention that they're also looking for things that constitute trademark or copyright infringement. i guess they throw that in there with child pornography and terrorism. this is not what the dhs was intended for and i think it's disgusting that they are allowed to extend their reach like this. one fact that will never change is that the people making and enforcing the rules will always live by their own.

i guess ill have to put my movies on a thumb drive and hide it inside my anus when passing through security.

bagseed

@Elliuotatar: I agree completely. I do, however, think you are underestimating our governments ability to crack encryption. They can probably cut through just about anything in a heartbeat.

everyones ok with the searches till they get searched.

And needing suspicion to do things brings back racism and the like. They did random searches in the first place to counteract the fact that all brown people look suspicious to airline workers.

@Dearhaw: Agreed. I'm OK with them searching 1000 laptops, but it's the fact they don't need to suspect anything to do so that bothers me.

Low numbers mean squat, if those searches were unwarranted. One, would be one too many.

Dearhaw

@Elliuotatar:
Or they could get those bombs in that oh-so-great country. The US is still the country with the most explosives, Most active military and the ability for 4 year olds to own working firearms...

Are we actually still surprised the US is the primary target for terrorists? I'm not.

My opinion is that the border control shouldn't be snooping around in people's private data at all.

But since privacy is not very high on most Americans' list of priorities, let's tackle this issue from a different angle, shall we?

Is this really the best use of our resources?

If a terrorist knows their laptop may be searched at the border, they will simply transmit their data over the internet.

But let's say they did try to smuggle data across the border. The data on the laptop would most likely be encrypted, and therefore out of reach of the TSA agent; even with 30 days to attempt to gain access.

So, given how unlikely it is that the TSA will ever catch a terrorist by scouring through your most private data and corporate secrets, do you really want them spending hundreds of thousands of hours on these sorts of searches?

Wouldn't you rather they spent all that extra time searching vehicles and bags for dirty bombs and such? Stuff the terrorists actually have no choice but to attempt to smuggle across the border?

Elliuotatar

"Given those numbers, I guess I'm OK with it."

So I guess by the same logic you'd be fine with, say, imprisoning a thousand people without due process?

This rule is outrageous. While there may be a remote chance that someone might be carrying illicit materials on a laptop, the practice is so invasive, so chilling that it completely negates any potential positive effect. It is an assault on the first amendment and it cannot be allowed to happen.

@SquareBubbles: Also, as a card carrying member of the ACLU, this is only a minor improvement over a very disturbing problem.

SquareBubbles

@FritzLaurel: If I could promote comments, I would promote yours

SquareBubbles

You're okay with it?!? Are you crazy? You're only saying that because you've never had your laptop, the thing which you make money with, your livelihood, taken from you for an extended period of time for no reason. (For the record, neither have I, but I know a bad thing when I see it.)

This is asinine and goes against every principle on which this country was founded.

Wait, aren't The People in charge of the government in this country? How did we ever let this BS happen? Time to write our representatives and vote them out of office if they keep this crap up.

I guess there is a law (pending or maybe already passed) that gives a police officer the right to search your laptop for no reason to search for things that break the DMCA. I dont think kiddie porn falls into that thou, so you freaks are safe there.

clR3vv