CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › I won't be taking my laptop across the border
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I won't be taking my laptop across the border

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
Or anything except my suit made out of an American flag.

Traveler's Laptops May Be Detained At Border

Quote:
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, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The policies . . . are truly alarming," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government's border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.

DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies -- which apply to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens -- are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism. Officials said such procedures have long been in place but were disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter.

Civil liberties and business travel groups have pressed the government to disclose its procedures as an increasing number of international travelers have reported that their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices have been taken -- for months, in at least one case -- and their contents examined.

The policies state that officers may "detain" laptops "for a reasonable period of time" to "review and analyze information." This may take place "absent individualized suspicion."

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' or 'pocket litter.' "

Reasonable measures must be taken to protect business information and attorney-client privileged material, the policies say, but there is no specific mention of the handling of personal data such as medical and financial records.

When a review is completed and no probable cause exists to keep the information, any copies of the data must be destroyed. Copies sent to non-federal entities must be returned to DHS. But the documents specify that there is no limitation on authorities keeping written notes or reports about the materials.

"They're saying they can rifle through all the information in a traveler's laptop without having a smidgen of evidence that the traveler is breaking the law," said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Notably, he said, the policies "don't establish any criteria for whose computer can be searched."

Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had "plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant" to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote in an opinion piece published last month in USA Today that "the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices." Searches have uncovered "violent jihadist materials" as well as images of child pornography, he wrote.

With about 400 million travelers entering the country each year, "as a practical matter, travelers only go to secondary [for a more thorough examination] when there is some level of suspicion," Chertoff wrote. "Yet legislation locking in a particular standard for searches would have a dangerous, chilling effect as officers' often split-second assessments are second-guessed."

In April, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the government's power to conduct searches of an international traveler's laptop without suspicion of wrongdoing. The Customs policy can be viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/...admissability/
search_authority.ctt/search_authority.pdf.
post #2 of 56
What are you gonna do about it, Matt?
post #3 of 56
Matt, don't wear a breadboard shirt. You'll get clubbed.
post #4 of 56
Follow the money, not really mentioned in the article; illegal copies of movies and music. Wouldn't be surprised that's a significant motivating factor to implement these measures.
post #5 of 56
In other news, the number of TSA employees with MacBook Pros has increased by 1200 percent.

I stopped flying altogether. If I can't get there on the train, I ain't going. Talking to people on the train, I heard a lot of that. Being treated like a human being is worth a couple of extra hours, or even days, to a whole bunch of people. In my own anecdotal experience.
post #6 of 56
Man, how expensive is it to stop people and search their hard drives. That takes quite a bit of time and setup. Incredible.
post #7 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy n View Post
I shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes in bewilderment at the complete ineptness of the people running our countries.
Just don't do that in an airport. Some guy named Big Steve will be elbow-deep in your asshole looking for Britney Spears bootlegs.
post #8 of 56
They aren't taking your laptops to look for pirated shit. That's just the excuse they use.
post #9 of 56
If you ask Germans how they got to the point at which they had death camps, they'll tell you it all happened so gradually they couldn't take in the sheer breadth of what their country had become until it was too late.
post #10 of 56
Let's just keep giving up that freedom a little byte at a time.

I'm an American citizen and if they want to search my property that invasively they're going to have to get a warrant or arrest me. I am dead serious.
post #11 of 56
I live in NYC. A few years ago the city implemented a policy where the police would randomly set up at a subway staion and inspect bags. They were looking for explosives but if you had something else that was illicit (say, a dimebag) you could be arrested for possession. We were told that if you saw the police in a station and wanted to walk to another station to gain entrance that was perfectly acceptable.

The libertarian in me blanched at this idea. But as a practical matter, I had and have no problem with it. I see that table I walk right up to the cops and show them my bag without being asked. To me it was a reasonable measure with a minimum protection of civil liberties built in (I have a right to privacy but the constitution grants me no right to get on the subway at 33rd and Park).

But this is just bullshit.
post #12 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk View Post
(I have a right to privacy but the constitution grants me no right to get on the subway at 33rd and Park).

But this is just bullshit.
You sort of have it backwards: your right to travel has actual explicit protections in the Bill of Rights and a rather lengthy history of case law. The reason right-wingers love "constructionalist" interpreters of the US Consitituion so much is that this is not the case when it comes to the issue of privacy, which helps them in their crusade against things like abortion and gay rights. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea just how much pull those protections have on municipal modes of transit.
post #13 of 56
If they're looking for illegal shit they'll find nothing on my laptop, but fuck if they'll get the chance to search it. I'll raise hell before that happens. It's the principle of the fucking thing.
post #14 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
What are you gonna do about it, Matt?
Not take my laptop out of the country.
post #15 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
You sort of have it backwards: your right to travel has actual explicit protections in the Bill of Rights and a rather lengthy history of case law. The reason right-wingers love "constructionalist" interpreters of the US Consitituion so much is that this is not the case when it comes to the issue of privacy, which helps them in their crusade against things like abortion and gay rights. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea just how much pull those protections have on municipal modes of transit.
None. I have viable alternatives (walking eight blocks to the next train station), they're not prohibiting me from crossing state lines. However the Fourth Amendment is pretty explicit.

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
That is the right to privacy to which I'm referring. One that is specifically enumerated rather than some of the other peskier ones.
post #16 of 56
So, I'm not studied in legal issues but this whole war on terror seems to me like a conscious effort to stop if not reverse the course that the western legal system has been on since the Magna Carta.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Let's be upfront about it and give this whole democracy deal a rest. A feudal system would be good I guess. Because let me tell you, there are more important things for democracy than simply holding elections every four or five years.
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
Let's just keep giving up that freedom a little byte at a time.

I'm an American citizen and if they want to search my property that invasively they're going to have to get a warrant or arrest me. I am dead serious.
Warrantless, random searches at borders are legal. Drugs, y'know.
post #18 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
Not take my laptop out of the country.
They're already capable of looking at what you type online, read your e-mails. If you guys are really pissed at the police-state our world is becoming, bitching about it in forums only make them laugh. We've all been doing that for years now.
Someone just mentioned the Nazis... same thing is happening here. People just talked about how bad things were becoming in the 30's. No one acted.
post #19 of 56
Are we going to blitz Canada?
post #20 of 56
Go for it. I'm going to Switzerland tomorrow.
post #21 of 56
We need your tourist dollars!
post #22 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
They're already capable of looking at what you type online, read your e-mails.
You actually have to provide more justification to have the govt. read your emails or install a keylogger, so what is being proposed here is much much worse. They just want to look at your laptop for no reason at all, and I can't understand how that could be legal.
post #23 of 56
Drugs!
post #24 of 56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29

I don't think that most of the agencies involved give a shit about warrants and permission in most cases. Especially if several nations are involved. Confuses things. They want info they can use against someone later on, most likely. Info can help push agendas, bury competitors, industrial espionage...oh, and catch terrorists.
post #25 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
If you ask Germans how they got to the point at which they had death camps, they'll tell you it all happened so gradually they couldn't take in the sheer breadth of what their country had become until it was too late.
Wow. I...Between this and the anthrax thread, just...wow.
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Wow. I...Between this and the anthrax thread, just...wow.
Why don't you just block my posts?
post #27 of 56
So, basically, the terrorists have won. You lost.
Your government is , at a pretty speedy rate, breaking about any civil right in the name of protection from terror, practically terrorizing their own citizens.
AH, but its all legal cause they say so, aight?

Pathetic.
post #28 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaunshar View Post
So, basically, the terrorists have won. You lost.
Your government is terrorizing their own citizens.
AH, but its all legal cause they say so, aight?

Pathetic.
Fixed that for you.
post #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29

I don't think that most of the agencies involved give a shit about warrants and permission in most cases. Especially if several nations are involved. Confuses things. They want info they can use against someone later on, most likely. Info can help push agendas, bury competitors, industrial espionage...oh, and catch terrorists.
Do you read your own links? Carnivore is not only outdated now, but it does require a warrant or court order. Of course it has potential to be abused (they could be capturing all traffic if they wanted to) but again at least the law says they have to ask permission from a court of law.

This checking of laptops at airports for materials that have nothing to do with blowing up the plane is completely unjustified, unless people believe that a teenager with some random mp3s is going to bring down the plane.
post #30 of 56
To be quite honest yt, you brought in the Nazi card at record speeds, which is saying a lot for any random internet discussion.
post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
To be quite honest yt, you brought in the Nazi card at record speeds, which is saying a lot for any random internet discussion.
ElCap, knowing me as you do, do any of my posts inspire you to say "I... just wow"?
post #32 of 56
It's just sad to see someone so obviously intelligent and engaged turn into a tinfoil hat person, as you have of late.
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
It's just sad to see someone so obviously intelligent and engaged turn into a tinfoil hat person, as you have of late.
I think an incurious mind is infinitely sadder, frankly. But since it doesn't impede your sense of entitlement to judge me, and I don't plan on deadening my desire to think independently to suit your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you put me on ignore.
post #34 of 56
America is becoming worse and worse it seems. Ironic that a conservative government would implement policies like this. They seem to be taking advantage of the latest technology and butting into citizens' lives on a more frequent basis (and for the worst). I mean, the United States of America is becoming so Fucked it's almost hard to believe. I am aghast at the vast apathy of the proletariat, or maybe they aren't apathetic and I just haven't heard of many protests or anything. But wow.
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaunshar View Post
So, basically, the terrorists have won. You lost.
Your government is , at a pretty speedy rate, breaking about any civil right in the name of protection from terror, practically terrorizing their own citizens.
AH, but its all legal cause they say so, aight?

Pathetic.
I would not want my laptop being taken from me were I travelling to the States; it most likely would contain the reason I'm going in the first place. But let's save the hyperbole for when they're rounding people (not just citizens) up or breaking into homes and taking people away. Let's save the outrage for when they start torturing their prisoners. There are lots of civil liberties left in the States, and annoying rules, however foolish, is not terrorizing people. Killing the families of political dissenters is terrorizing people.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
I am aghast at the vast apathy of the proletariat, or maybe they aren't apathetic and I just haven't heard of many protests or anything. But wow.
It's a little of both. While there's a lot of apathy out there, there's a lot of protesting as well that's simply either not covered or covered grossly inaccurately. The coverage of how New York City handled the 2004 Republican National Convention was a low point even by Bush-era American journalistic standards. Mention Pier 57 to someone who gets their news from NBC and see if they even know what you're talking about.
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by reggie-wanker View Post
Mention Pier 57 to someone who gets their news from NBC and see if they even know what you're talking about.
That still makes me sick just thinking about it.
post #38 of 56
Wired magazine provides a way to "hack" around this law (in the US):
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...-laptop-s.html

Quote:
Oddly, though there seems to be one way to keep a border agent from looking in your electronics and papers unless they have probable cause to believe you have committed a crime.

Put it in a first class U.S. mail envelope and stamp it -- or even better mail it to yourself before the trip.

Officers may not read or permit others to read correspondence contained in sealed letter class mail (the international equivalent of First Class) without an appropriate search warrant or consent.

But the comments in that article point to its flaws ...
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
That still makes me sick just thinking about it.
It would make a lot of people sick, had they heard of it to think about it. Goddamn liberal media.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I think an incurious mind is infinitely sadder, frankly. But since it doesn't impede your sense of entitlement to judge me, and I don't plan on deadening my desire to think independently to suit your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you put me on ignore.
First of all, I'm not going to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore -- I don't play that way.

Secondly, your criticism of me as "incurious" and "delicate" is laughable. I've actually learned a lot from your posts in the past, and I hope to continue to do so. But when you're floating half-assed conspiracy theories and using Nazi analogies at the drop of the hat, it makes you look stupid. I'm not one to bring up old shit, but you pulled this same nonsense in the 9/11 thread, where you were dismissive of anyone who disagreed with you.

You're being paranoid in the worst sense of the word, and it gives the other things you have to say -- many of which I agree with, some of which I do not -- a context which makes them look less important, less worthy of hearing.

I'm not one for a board war over this. That's all I've got to say.
post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
You're being paranoid in the worst sense of the word, and it gives the other things you have to say -- many of which I agree with, some of which I do not -- a context which makes them look less important, less worthy of hearing.

If I may interject -- this is nonsense. We NEED people like yt, people who are willing to raise the flag and stomp and holler and , god forbid, be called paranoid because they're fucking observant. I wish we had thousands more of her, wrong or right, because she brings up angles on political topics that we plebes just tiptoe around.

Still, if I disagree with her, she's nutz.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
If I may interject -- this is nonsense. We NEED people like yt, people who are willing to raise the flag and stomp and holler and , god forbid, be called paranoid because they're fucking observant. I wish we had thousands more of her, wrong or right, because she brings up angles on political topics that we plebes just tiptoe around.

Still, if I disagree with her, she's nutz.
What we need are critical thinkers. Now, it's true that someone who is a critical thinker is often called paranoid by others, but there's actually a difference. The implication I get from yt's posts is that anyone who doesn't hop on the conspiracy train is being credulous. My argument is that to hop on that train is just as credulous, it's just on the opposite side of the argument. Instead of giving credence to the government, you give credence to people who believe everything is a secret plot. A critical thinker doesn't jump to conclusions on either side, but carefully and thoroughly analyzes information before coming to a conclusion.
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStrickland View Post
The implication I get from yt's posts is that anyone who doesn't hop on the conspiracy train is being credulous.
Can you point that part out to me? Because it looked like I was asking Rath to put me on ignore rather than cluck his tongue every time I post something he can't wrap his mind around.
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
If I may interject -- this is nonsense. We NEED people like yt, people who are willing to raise the flag and stomp and holler and , god forbid, be called paranoid because they're fucking observant. I wish we had thousands more of her, wrong or right, because she brings up angles on political topics that we plebes just tiptoe around.

Still, if I disagree with her, she's nutz.
Thanks, js.
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Can you point that part out to me? Because it looked like I was asking Rath to put me on ignore rather than cluck his tongue every time I post something he can't wrap his mind around.
I wasn't talking about your reply, yt. I was talking about your posts in general. And I'm trying not to ascribe specific motivations to you, but rather point out that it's my interpretation of what you're saying. My interpretation could be completely wrong. Since I'm not you, I have no way of knowing what your actual motivations or thoughts on any particular subject are. I shouldn't have used the world "implications" in my post, as that suggests your intended meaning. I should have said I inferred certain meanings from your post, as that puts the accountability on my own shoulders. I apologize for that -- I could be completely off base.

That being said, from what I've seen, it does seem that you lean toward giving credence to conspiracy theories and insidious motives on the part of the government. I'd never go so far as to say the government is blameless or innocent, but I'm not ready to jump on the opposite end of the spectrum either. Now maybe I've just looked at the wrong posts and therefore have come to a faulty conclusion, but that's my interpretation so far.
post #46 of 56
Fair enough, but if you read most of my posts, I'm not generally talking about conclusions at all, or telling anyone they're stupid for not sharing my own theories. Most of the time I'm bringing up questions that I don't believe have been satisfactorily answered, and trying to get to the bottom of why.

In this particular thread, I was making a point about Nazi Germany that I think is relevant to laptop seizures, the Fourth Amendment, and the Bush administration. I'm not saying you're wrong if you don't agree there are parallels. As is clear above, I'm reacting here to a post expressing shock that I would post such a thing.

If you have read my posts, are you shocked or blown away that I would make such an analogy?
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStrickland View Post
it does seem that you lean toward giving credence to conspiracy theories and insidious motives on the part of the government. I'd never go so far as to say the government is blameless or innocent, but I'm not ready to jump on the opposite end of the spectrum either
Doesn't history show us the infinite governmental capacity for conspiracy and insidiousness? The Roman Empire alone makes this case, not to even mention the sordid history of the British Empire. There's a "it could never happen here" mentality (not saying it's in evidence in this thread, but it exists big-time) in America that guarantees that it will happen here sooner or later, simply because when it does nobody will believe it. If, in fact, it hasn't happened already, and nobody believed it because [ralphwiggum]that's unpossible[/ralphwiggum].

Confusing the impossible and the unlikely-but-possible will be America's undoing one day.
post #48 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by reggie-wanker View Post
In other news, the number of TSA employees with MacBook Pros has increased by 1200 percent.

I stopped flying altogether. If I can't get there on the train, I ain't going. Talking to people on the train, I heard a lot of that. Being treated like a human being is worth a couple of extra hours, or even days, to a whole bunch of people. In my own anecdotal experience.
No trains from here to Asia or Europe. It just not plans anyways it anyone crossing the border. When the last time you tried to drive to Mexico?
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Fair enough, but if you read most of my posts, I'm not generally talking about conclusions at all, or telling anyone they're stupid for not sharing my own theories. Most of the time I'm bringing up questions that I don't believe have been satisfactorily answered, and trying to get to the bottom of why.

In this particular thread, I was making a point about Nazi Germany that I think is relevant to laptop seizures, the Fourth Amendment, and the Bush administration. I'm not saying you're wrong if you don't agree there are parallels. As is clear above, I'm reacting here to a post expressing shock that I would post such a thing.

If you have read my posts, are you shocked or blown away that I would make such an analogy?
Not at all. I never said I was shocked by your assertion. I just didn't feel like you are a critical thinker. But then, I don't think I'm much of a critical thinker either most of the time. It's a discipline I'm working on developing. In general, I think most people are really bad at critical thinking.

And again, this is all based off my interpretation. At the end of the day, it's just my own opinion. How much stock you put into my opinion is entirely up to you. If you think my interpretation is without merit, then that's fine. For me, it's always a work in progress.
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
No trains from here to Asia or Europe. It just not plans anyways it anyone crossing the border. When the last time you tried to drive to Mexico?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reggie-wanker
If I can't get there on the train, I ain't going.
So clearly for the time being I'm not going to Asia or Europe. If I absolutely had to for some life-or-death reason, obviously that would involve flying... and FedExing my laptop to the hotel I was staying at.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › I won't be taking my laptop across the border