Laptops can be confiscated and searched at US border without cause says report

In further evidence of our rapidly eroding civil liberties, the Department of Homeland Security disclosed today that US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have the right to confiscate and search a traveler's laptop or other electronic device without any suspicion of wrongdoing. The rules -- which we reported on in February -- allow for searches of hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, and video or audio tapes, and specify that the agencies can "detain" belongings for a "reasonable period of time," (i.e., as long as they please). Additionally, the DHS can share the data found with other government agencies or private entities for translation, decryption, or (astoundingly vague) "other reasons." The DHS says the policies apply to anyone entering the country -- including US citizens -- and claim the measures are necessary to prevent terrorism. In other news, Big Brother issued a statement today guaranteeing a bonus for turning over family members suspected of crimethink to the Thought Police.

[Via Switched]

[PA @ Aug 1st 2008 11:05AM]

Welcome to the USSR !

[skant @ Aug 1st 2008 11:11AM]

In Soviet Russia, Car Drives You!

straight to the KGB

[eney @ Aug 1st 2008 11:19AM]

It's even worse.

[Flashpoint @ Aug 1st 2008 11:36AM]

In fascist America

Oreilly Pwns You!

[Flashpoint @ Aug 1st 2008 11:46AM]

HERE IS A SOLUTION

Buy an Eee PC and store all of your dirt in it (you'll probably need a 500GB travel drive).

#1 Never use it with your home wifi or the wifi of any place you frequently go to. Instead, find a place where wiwi is insecure and go there, use it and then dissapear into the night.

#2 This laptop is special. Its a throwaway. If you ever feel the feds are onto you, keep a bottle of gasoline nearby and a lighter. SET IT ON FIRE. Most feds come unprepared to put out a gas fire and you will ensure the machine is destroyed which means no evidence is recoverable.

You'll get hit with arson charges (rather than child porn or computer crimes) and you simply plead insanity and you get to go to a mental institution and be evaluated. You'll be out in a few months if you promise never to burn things again.

#3 You've got to hide it in unlikely spots. Get a cereal box for instance. A technology warrant allows police to take all the electric items from your house but dissalows non-related items. Even if they found it in a box of cereal it would be inadmissible in court.

[fred @ Aug 1st 2008 11:51AM]

Come on, folks.

Doing this at a state border is pretty commie. An international border is a whole different thing.

I fully expect a sovereign nation to do stuff like this, as annoying as it is, with anything crossing their borders.

[JC @ Aug 1st 2008 12:11PM]

Fred must have drank the Kool-aid.
Hopefully when you take that trip to a foreign country (inc. Canada or Mexico) that you won't experience this. Because I'm sure the first thing you will yell out when being questioned is, "I have rights! You can't do this to me." Meanwhile your fellow citizens will laugh inside while they rip apart your devices looking for something they know is not there but they detained you anyway because a "look" you gave or some other shallow reason because these folks get bored on the job. Good luck with that.

[OneLove @ Aug 1st 2008 1:12PM]

@Flashpoint : You are bonkers man.

[blizz419 @ Aug 1st 2008 1:23PM]

"He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin

[blizz419 @ Aug 1st 2008 1:27PM]

"He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin

[Wolfticket @ Aug 1st 2008 1:54PM]

I think that actually deserves a double post.

[ctgaffney @ Aug 1st 2008 1:59PM]

in Socialist America;
the Power of Christ Compels you

[blizz419 @ Aug 1st 2008 2:08PM]

damn engadgets reply system is really fucked today

[coffee @ Aug 1st 2008 2:40PM]

blizz,

don't forget the "essential".

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's an important distinction.

However, this border law is horrible, and since it can be done without cause, is both baseless and overstepping, even more so to its own citizens, but also to others.

[Captain Obvious @ Aug 1st 2008 3:48PM]

This is not news. No one, American citizen or not, has ever had any Fourth Amendment priviliges when entering and exiting the country at airports. There is a reason that can search your bags without suspecting any wrongdoing - that's because the Fourth Amendment just doesn't apply at borders or airports.

It's much ado about nothing, really. We all know that they can look through our bags, so you don't bring drugs on a plane. Same thing here, you know that they are going to be looking at your laptop, so don't bring your kiddie porn with you.

And before everyone shouts that I'm a commie or fascist (whichever is the term for right-wing people these days), I'll repeat - THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS NEVER APPLIED AT BORDER OR AIRPORTS. EVER. IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY. SINCE IT WAS WRITTEN.

Thanks!

[fred @ Aug 1st 2008 4:33PM]

"Because I'm sure the first thing you will yell out when being questioned is, "I have rights! You can't do this to me." "



One of the first lessons I was told when taking a trip out of the U.S. is that the constitution does not travel with you.

Ignore that lesson at your own risk.

[BloodyGerman @ Aug 1st 2008 6:04PM]

Bet you get arrested at the airport if you have this quote of Benjamin Franklin on your t-shirt. Who wants to try that?

[r3loaded @ Aug 2nd 2008 5:36AM]

@BloodyGerman

What if I carried a $100 bill with his face on it? The irony...

[Josh @ Aug 4th 2008 12:04PM]

I wonder what will happen when they check someone's computer and some information gets leaked out! According to this article http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=515&doc_id=139841&f_src=flffour - and all of us know - the US government isn't very fond of taking responsibility for poor security.

[neim @ Aug 1st 2008 11:05AM]

america, homeland of the free!

[aalexand @ Aug 1st 2008 11:07AM]

thats slowly becoming free-ish

[OfflinePK @ Aug 1st 2008 11:29AM]

quasi-free?

[nathan.wong @ Aug 1st 2008 11:44AM]

Yes, free to look at anything you have whether you like it or not.

[neim @ Aug 1st 2008 11:47AM]

i'm sorry i'm from Argentina and don't know all of your expressions, what does "thats slowly becoming free-ish" mean?

bye guys

[ipubs bastard child @ Aug 1st 2008 11:56AM]

@neim

He means freedom has gone from free to free-ish. In other words, less free..

[blizz419 @ Aug 1st 2008 1:28PM]

He who will sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety - Ben Franklin

[Aedile @ Aug 1st 2008 3:21PM]

The diet coke of free.....

[zerocalories @ Aug 1st 2008 4:59PM]

haha
free*

[nDee @ Aug 2nd 2008 4:11AM]

Free of privacy?

[skant @ Aug 1st 2008 11:07AM]

I thought republicans were all about anti-government. What the hell happened?!

Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave.

[Rick @ Aug 1st 2008 11:12AM]

What? Republicans have created bigger government and monumental deficits.

Ronald Regan ran up the deficit with his 600-ship Navy hoping that Congress would repeal all the entitlement programs like Midicare.

Daddy Bush, Senior was the one who instituted the assult rifle ban back in 1989/90.

Look at what W has done to the deficit and personal liberties.

Hopefully things will change on Jan 20, 2009 unless W starts a war with Iran first.

[Veraxus @ Aug 1st 2008 11:23AM]

Republicans... Democrats... these days they're the same party. Only the Democrats have generally more charisma. This is why I switched to the Libertarian party. I still may not agree with all their ideals, but the truth is that they represent the best yesteryear ideals of both the Democratic AND Republican parties better than those parties do themselves. It's sad.

[Terpy @ Aug 1st 2008 11:48AM]

You make it seem like banning the assualt riffle was a bad thing. This may just be because I'm Canadian, but who the hell needs an assualt rifle anyway.

[Mikey @ Aug 1st 2008 11:58AM]

Terpy... I agree with you. But apparently the Supremes thought differently (well, 5 of them anyway).

[andy @ Aug 1st 2008 12:06PM]

Terpy, please define "assault rifle" for me once again.


I know what "fully automatic" means, and that's in the definition of "machine gun" which was banned in the 60's and still is.

But what's an "assault rifle" again?

[andy @ Aug 1st 2008 12:06PM]

Mikey, you're a bigger idiot than Terpy.

If you're going to talk about the law, you should at least hit up google.


The SCOTUS ruled that you have a right to keep a gun in your home for self defense assuming that you pass any reasonable background checks, test, and registrations.

What does that have to do with "assault weapons" again? And what are "assault weapons" again?

[Dave @ Aug 1st 2008 12:08PM]

@Rick

Bill Clinton passed the assault rifle ban, and little bush had it expire, get your facts straight.

W Bush, if you haven't noticed by now has been disowned by the Republicans. But if you think spending will go down with Democrats in the majority good luck. All that's going to happen is the money spent on defending the US will be diverted to social programs that are even more wasteful.

[Mikey @ Aug 1st 2008 12:17PM]

@andy

I was just hitting up my constitutional law notes and my law license.

Jackass

[andy @ Aug 1st 2008 12:24PM]

Skant,

Republicans are SUPPOSED to stand for smaller govn't (or at least that's what they say).


That's why they're having trouble with true conservatives right now, like the other fellow above pointed out. They're spending like drunken sailors and increasing regulation instead of reducing spending and enforcing existing laws. Hard to get the conservatives to show up for you when you're doing the opposite of what you said you would.

I'm a true conservative; no one represents my interests. No one has the balls. I don't need someone to "trim" the federal budget. I want someone who says up front that they're going to use a chainsaw approach instead of an exacto knife. The only budget items I want to see are infrastructure, law enforcement (but you only get one agency), and military.

[andy @ Aug 1st 2008 12:31PM]

Mikey,

I was just preparing a brief.


Keep studying. You're going to need it apparently.

[Itchy Pajamas @ Aug 1st 2008 12:31PM]

Yes, the Reps have swiped the mantle of bloated infrastructure and deficit spending. They abandoned me. And now I have abandoned them. (Having trouble finding a party I can respect, though... at least one that has any power in the US.)

[andy @ Aug 1st 2008 12:35PM]

Mikey,


I'll be nice and lay it out so that even you can comprehend.


The "assault weapons" ban had a sunset provision built into it. If it was not renewed by Congress and the president, then it went away on its own. It went away on its own. So now, I can buy the factory 12 round clips for my handgun instead of the cheapo 10 round aftermarket clips I have now. Whoopty dooo. I'll give you 10 bonus points if you can name any other substantive provision of the "assault weapons" ban. (Hint: it has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons; still banned by yet another gun ban.)


In the Heller case, SCOTUS declared an individual right to keep and bear arms in your own home for self defense subject to reasonable restrictions (background checks, no felons, registration, any tests and permits, etc.).

[Dave @ Aug 1st 2008 12:36PM]

yeah itchy, I would go libertarian along with every other disheartened repub but they have no chance, so once again its like every election where I'm picking the lesser of two evils - Old man vs no experience / flip-flopper

[Mikey @ Aug 1st 2008 12:37PM]

"I was just preparing a brief.


Keep studying. You're going to need it apparently."

I said law LICENSE... Wow, you're drafting a brief... oh wait, all lawyers draft briefs. That doesn't make you special.

I was commenting and giving my opinion, and you insulted me. That makes you a jackass. Jackass

[Mikey @ Aug 1st 2008 12:42PM]

Stupid comment system... this post was meant for here:

@andy

"In the Heller case, SCOTUS declared an individual right to keep and bear arms in your own home for self defense subject to reasonable restrictions"

And I was saying I (as in me personally, MIKEY) disagree with the Supreme Court. I'm sure you'll agree that the Supreme Court is often wrong (everyone agrees with that, we just disagree as to which cases they got wrong). I personally don't think the "right to bear arms" even exists in the constitution as a personal right. If anything, its a militia right.

[andy @ Aug 1st 2008 12:50PM]

Mikey,

I insulted you because you said that SCOTUS struck down the "assault weapons" ban.

And given your anti-gun bias, you're either intentionally lying, or misinformed, but either way, you shouldn't be talking about what they did or didn't do until you remedy your deficiency.

[skant @ Aug 1st 2008 12:51PM]

ugg the two of you, enough already. gun control is not a worthy point of contention. Please stop trying to measure your virtual penis sizes - they're virtual.

as for old man vs. inexperienced / flipflopper, i think this election turned when McCain moved right of center to appease elements of the party. This country is yearning for balance and for some more moderate central ideals, but instead we get polarization to the extremes that don't work.

At least it isn't Kerry vs. Bush

[Mikey @ Aug 1st 2008 1:02PM]

@ andy, I said nothing of the kind. Where in my post does it say that the Supreme Court struck down the assault riffle ban.

Terpy asked "who the hell needs an assualt rifle anyway [?]" I said, I agreed and apparently the Supremes did as well (because Heller struck down a gun control law, and thus could be argued to extend to assault riffle bans).... that is not the same thing as saying the Supreme Court struck down the assualt riffle ban.

You misread my post and then called me an idiot. So I stand by my original statement. Jackass.

[rock99rock @ Aug 1st 2008 1:36PM]

haha andy is a dumb lawyer

[Terpy @ Aug 1st 2008 1:40PM]

@ andy
Sorry I missed most of this debate, but I actually have work to do. If you do not know what an assault rifle is, here is a helpful link. Furthermore, just because some one holds a different viewpoint than you does not mean they are wrong. I simply asked a question: who the hell needs an assault rifle anyway? I have yet to here an answer.