Warning to those who fly with a laptop...

[fastpat]

Another extension of the police state by the US government.

Warning to those who fly with a laptop
Posted by Wendy McElroy at 09:56 AM

An article entitled "Can border agents search your laptop? Yes" presents the story of U.S. citizen Stuart Romm whose computer was searched first by Canadian customs officials and then by U.S. Customs officials to which the Canucks turned him over. The reason? He was once convicted of a crime and his laptop had child porn sites in its history.

The Romm matter became a court case and the upshot was...a Nevada court...found Romm guilty. An appeal of the case went to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which was charged with deciding an important issue: can border patrol agents search laptops without a warrant and without probable cause? The court's ruling was handed down on Monday, and said that yes, agents can search laptops for any reason. The court argued that the forensic analysis fell under the "border search exception to the warrant requirement." This exception was established by United States v. Montoya de Hernandez in 1985, and says that "the government may conduct routine searches of persons entering the United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant." The court goes on to note that international airports count as border terminals, even if not physically located on a US border.

I do not suggest that LRC readers frequent child porn sites (indeed, I presume you do not) but I suspect that many log on to anti-war sites or ones that are severely critical of Bush, Homeland Security, customs officials, etc. Their mere presence might cause you a headache. The text of the court ruling is here.

You are cordially invited to browse and join a libertarian BB that I moderate.
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/

[BlueSkyJaunte]

This is why the government doesn't want you to have encryption.

[masraum]

I don't go to kiddie porn sites. I haven't plotted to do anything that a terrorist might do. It would be terribly inconvenient, but I suppose they could search my laptop, they wouldn't find anything.

I guess it's a shame that they caught this guy that was surfing kiddie porn. I'm sure he's harmless. He'd probably make a good babysitter or school coach.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by masraum
I don't go to kiddie porn sites. I haven't plotted to do anything that a terrorist might do. It would be terribly inconvenient, but I suppose they could search my laptop, they wouldn't find anything.

I guess it's a shame that they caught this guy that was surfing kiddie porn. I'm sure he's harmless. He'd probably make a good babysitter or school coach.

Ah, the old "if you have nothing to hide, why be concerned about the government knowing about it" theory.

That's not the American way. Read the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. A warrant is clearly needed for such a search and the US government court has removed the protection of that intrinsic right. There is no exception to the 4th Amendment due to a persons crossing a border. The 4th Amendment applies to the US government at all times and places.

[jyl]

I routinely erase my webrowser's history, and exclude websites from Google Desktop. No. there's nothing criminal on there. But I see no reason why its anybody's business where I surf.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by fastpat
Ah, the old "if you have nothing to hide, why be concerned about the government knowing about it" theory.

That's not the American way. Read the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. A warrant is clearly needed for such a search and the US government court has removed the protection of that intrinsic right. There is no exception to the 4th Amendment due to a persons crossing a border. The 4th Amendment applies to the US government at all times and places.

Thats very interesting. Now, as a damn furriner who is therefore even more likely to be done over by Security at an American airport, and who always travels with a notebook, what are my rights under your Constitution? Bugger all, I suspect.

An aside. Ive a friend who pilots 747s into LA every couple of weeks. One of his pilot colleagues has a name which matchs an alias used by a person of interest on some a list. Every week this man is taken by Securtity at LA, in his Qantas uniform, and held and qustioned for several hours. He explains that yes, he is a pilot employed by an airline and yes all these answers are going to be the same because " you are the same guys that asked me the same questions two weeks ago..."

[Hugh R]

Sorry, I forgot my password. "Well then your not getting on the plane". Really, you e-rayed it and it checked out OK, why can't I get on the plane. "Because you won't let us look at the contents of the hard drive". What does that have to do with anything? I see the 4th amendment circling the bowl.

[tobster1911]

John,
You are interfering with Pats "moan and groan about the Government" party he is throwing. It is his right to do whatever he wants. If he doesn't get his way he will throw himself on the floor and kick and scream. Either that or throw a temper tantrum here on PPOT

[techweenie]

Originally posted by masraum
I don't go to kiddie porn sites. I haven't plotted to do anything that a terrorist might do. It would be terribly inconvenient, but I suppose they could search my laptop, they wouldn't find anything.

It would all be lollipops and sunshine if that were the case.

Something like 70% of PCs are sooner or later infected by some sort of malware -- spyware or adware, primarily.

The purpose of those infections is to take you to places like porn or gambling sites. It's quite possible that most browser histories include lots of sites that weren't visited voluntarily because of this kind of malware.

There is no way to determine through a basic history file whether you voluntarily visited sites or whether some malware took you there.

---------article excerpt----------
As the 2004 AOL study noted, if a computer has any spyware at all, it typically has dozens of different pieces installed. The cumulative effect, and the interactions between spyware components, typically cause the stereotypical symptoms reported by users: a computer which slows to a crawl, overwhelmed by the many parasitic processes running on it. Moreover, some types of spyware disable software firewalls and anti-virus software, and/or reduce browser security settings, thus opening the system to further opportunistic infections, much like an immune deficiency disease. Documented cases have also occurred where a spyware program disabled other spyware programs installed by its competitors.

Some other types of spyware (Targetsoft, for example) modify system files to make themselves harder to remove. (Targetsoft modifies the "Winsock" Windows Sockets files. The deletion of the spyware-infected file "inetadpt.dll" will interrupt normal networking usage.) Unlike users of many other operating systems, a typical Windows user has administrator privileges on the system, mostly for convenience. Because of this, any program which the user runs (intentionally or not) has unrestricted access to the system. Spyware, along with other threats, has led some Windows users to move to other platforms such as Linux or Apple Macintosh, which such malware targets far less frequently.
[edit]

Advertisements

Many spyware programs reveal themselves visibly by displaying advertisements. Some programs simply display pop-up ads on a regular basis; for instance, one every several minutes, or one when the user opens a new browser window. Others display ads in response to specific sites that the user visits. Spyware operators present this feature as desirable to advertisers, who may buy ad placement in pop-ups displayed when the user visits a particular site. It is also one of the purposes for which spyware programs gather information on user behaviour. Hence, pop-up advertisements lead to some of users' most common complaints about spyware.

Many users complain about irritating or offensive advertisements as well. As with many banner ads, many spyware advertisements use animation or flickering banners which are visually distracting and annoying. Pop-up ads for pornography often display indiscriminately, including when children use the computer (possibly in violation of anti-pornography laws).

----------------

[Rodeo]

I totally agree that when crossing a border, one does and should give their implied consent to a search of their belongings. I do not believe that this consent extends to the data on your laptop, nor should it.

By that logic, when I walk into the courthouse this afternoon, the sheriffs can open my briefcase and turn on my laptop and start looking around my hard drive. I don't think so.

I'm also very cautious about applying Mr. Cramer's argument too broadly. True, some things are privileges and we give up certain rights to exercise those privileges. But it's a slippery slope.

Is driving a privilege or a right? If a privilege, one could argue that you consent to a search of your car at the whim of the police.

How about walking down the street? You could always CHOSE to stay home, so is that a privilege as well?

The key is not whether some activity is a right or a privilege, but whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If there is, the government should not be permitted to snoop around in the absence of probable cause that a crime has or will be committed.

[john70t]

In theory, diving and flying as privledges is correct but "don't like it, don't do it" could potentially open a can of legal worms.
-If one is banned from driving on the freeway, shouldn't the gov provide "crows path" access for bicyclists as the public pathways are centered around automobile roads and discriminate against non-drivers?
-If one can't fly or drive, shouldn't one be exempt from transportation/gas taxes as well through new tax classifications?

In theory, airliners, auto manufacturers, and energy distributors are sentient private companies, but the reality is that most could not exist without tax subsidies/differments/bailouts and specialized laws.

Not to get off the subject(too much), but in the case of the RIAA, I've paid for the listening rights of the material(music), but if I donwload a digital copy of my scratched record, the FBI could throw away the key even without interstate trade. MS mediaplayer EULA also alows them to connect back to their company, without the users input, and search media files on the users computer.
There are a lot of governmental and corporate backdoors being built into individuals purchased and owned items.

[KevinP73]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
I seriously doubt that anyone would be convicted or hassled by visiting an anti-Bush website. I figure most people in the US have been to at least one in the past year.-Wayne

I've been to PPOT, does that count?

[jyl]

I think there's two separate legal issues here. (1) border crossing, (2) air travel.

The narrow and rationally related test that John-Cramer mentioned might apply to (2) but I suspect it doesn't apply to (1). I think that at the point of crossing the US border, you have essentially no privacy rights.

At work, no time to research it but that is my best guess. Welcome corrections.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by john_cramer
***Driving is a privilege, plain and simple. ***

I enjoy your posts, Mr. Cramer, although I am quite the opposite of you politically. Nonetheless, you argue well (most of the time ). I don't understand how you reconcile your libertarian urges with the invasions of privacy and expansion of government powers under George Bush, but I digress.

Just to pick one point out of your thoughtful post. I understand that "driving is a privilege" under well-settled law.

Now think it through ... Other than NYC and VERY few other places, it is simply not possible to participate in society, to enjoy the rights and privileges of being an American, without access to a car and the roadways.

My life would change dramatically, all for the worse, if I could not drive. Take the kids to school? No? Get down to the sale at Macy's? No? Skiing this weekend? No. Go over a friend's house at 9:00 pm? No. Sign up for next weekend's DE? No. Come home from work after the buses stop? No. Go to work before the buses start? No. Meet a friend for lunch on the water? No.

And on and on and on ...

There is a reason those without a car are, for the most part, at the very lowest rungs of society.

When I get in my car, i expect to be free from government intrusion, absent some lawbreaking on my part. Call it a right or a privilege, i don't care, but leave me alone while I'm doing it.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
Child pornography is a serious crime, and I'm glad this guy was nabbed. I seriously doubt that anyone would be convicted or hassled by visiting an anti-Bush website. I figure most people in the US have been to at least one in the past year.

How did they compell him to give up his password? Or was the notebook not password protected? Also, if the story is correct, the Canadians searched the laptop first and then handed him over to the US. I doubt that our Constitution applies to Canada...

-Wayne

You are correct, however, the Constitution does apply to any and all US government agents.

What they are using is Admiralty Law; which is in effect both by treaty and tradition. It is used to stop any boat in navigable US waters for boarding and searching; any time, any place, for any reason, or for none at all.

That the man was a criminal cannot be used to thwart, or undermine, in any way the protections of intrinsic freedoms codified in the US constitution.