Proof that the U.S. is dumb.Follow

I feel a little bit of both everytime I go through U.S customs.

At the risk of being bashed (again) for actually knowing the law instead of what people tend to think it is... No, it's not.


The power for customs officers to search baggage and personal property when carried by someone crossing into the US has been firmly established for decades (if not longer). Your grandparent's luggage was subject to search in this situation.

The *only* difference is whether or not you believe that property stored on a hard drive should be immune to said searches. And frankly, I'm curious what argument could be used in that case. Your underwear is ok to search, but not your hard drive? That's a hard sell IMO...


Guys. There's nothing magical or special about data on a hard drive. It is no more or less protected then a briefcase full of papers. Those have been subject to search for a long time, so why assume a hard drive is protected? The stuff on your computer is not your "thoughts" anymore then a notebook or journal are. This is not a new violation of any right, nor an infringement of a right. Your possessions and papers have always been subject to search when crossing a border, and they still are.

This really isn't anything new.

matters not, people then still said it was a good thing, or was ok, or they would not mind.

yet i read here and wow people are not upset about it... well guess i was just ahead of the curve on this one.

If by 'people,' you mean 'Uglysasquatch,' then yes.

No, I said it wasn't relevant. I was just bitter.

So the difference isn't in the law, or the application of the law, but that "back then" people left their private and confidential information at home, and today they insist on carting it around with themselves everywhere they go...


Gotcha. Um... Maybe this is my own professional IT personality sneaking through, but you should *never* put any data on a laptop, pda, or cell phone that you don't want to become public. Period. Ever. End of story.

Yes. It's how the world works now. It means your law is now apocryphal.


Yes, that sounds like the voice of an "IT Professional", as opposed to someone who has to conduct business outside of their office without relying on 3rd party insecure networks.

Eh, I was with ya - no political waffling here.

/highfives Singdall

You claimed that it was a violation, and now you're saying that the law is old. Which is it?

All I said was that these searches are not a violation of the 4th amendment. A statement you disagreed with. You're wrong. I'm right.

If you want to argue that the 4th amendment should be changed to include laptops on public property when crossing a border, by all means make the argument. I think it's weak, but that's better then just accusing these guys of violating the constitutional rights of the people they are searching.




Carrying unencrypted sensitive data on a laptop *is* a "3rd party insecure network".

I'm sorry, but I'll tar up a set of documents, encrypt them, and then ftp them to a remote site looooooong before I'll walk around with said data on a laptop. What if I lose the laptop, or an operative of the Chinese government steals it (a valid concern where I work)?


There is no valid argument here. If anything, computers make this easier, not harder. Back in the day, if you were carrying sensitive documents, you carried physical sensitive documents. They were subject to search or loss, just as they are today. Today, you can encrypt said data. You can send it via multiple methods that are much cheaper then the equivalent secure methods "back then". I simply don't understand anyone complaining that the information age somehow makes it harder for them to keep their private information private.

All it's done is make it easier for stupid people to make their private information public. And there are apparently a lot of stupid people out there...

gbaji you're a ****.

I never claimed it was a violation. I said your constitution is out of date. Sheesh.

I also referred to secure encrypted data (data key encrypted and biometrically accessed), knob-head.

I'm also intrigued to see the test case that defines "low-hanging fruit" (an interesting legal term).

FUck Off, amateur.

So what's the purpose?

I think that'll make gbaji question his faith in 'the system'

In other news, a man did a bad thing and got away with it because he was a liberal.

True story.

They cannot compel you to provide a decryption key without a warrant.

Unlike, say, the UK, where you can be jailed for two years for not provided a key you may or may not even have.

Of course, in the US, most courts consider the fact that something is encrypted to be probable cause to issue a warrant for the key, so it's not a particularly useful exception.

I don't see this as very signifigant, really. It's not any more encroaching than existing powers to search bags and or your person. It'd be a problem if it became policy to copy all data and fish through it later. That doesn't seem to be the case yet, although, it'd clearly be legal to do so.