the government is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

Is "driving over the border from canada" reasonable suspicion now?

When they say "Hey do you have any child pornography on that laptop?" and the person says "I dunno, maybe" I'd say it's reasonable suspicion. My joke about the ACLU before was just that a joke, I don't agree with searching the harddrives of everyone's computers. But I have no problem with police officers asking if there's anything illegal on the computer and if the answer = probable cause I don't see a problem with searching.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

When they say "Hey do you have any child pornography on that laptop?" and the person says "I dunno, maybe" I'd say it's reasonable suspicion.

I already said that guy was stupid. But the article says they can search ANY laptop going over the border.

Same with the guy coming from the philippines. Is "returning from the philippines" enough suspicion?




Last..........what if I'm coming over the border and they ask me to log into my laptop and I say "no." What then??

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

Last..........what if I'm coming over the border and they ask me to log into my laptop and I say "no." What then??

To Gitmo with you!

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

Is "driving over the border from canada" reasonable suspicion now?

no but saying maybe I have child porno is.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

no but saying maybe I have child porno is.

I already said that guy was stupid. But the article says they can search ANY laptop going over the border.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

I already said that guy was stupid. But the article says they can search ANY laptop going over the border.

That is what the article says that but then references two cases that involved reasonable suspicion as examples. Maybe just a tad of "sensationalism" journalist?

[Galactic Gigolo]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

That is what the article says that but then references two cases that involved reasonable suspicion as examples. Maybe just a tad of "sensationalism" journalist?

I sent an e-mail to the writer of the article asking for clarification.

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

...Maybe just a tad of "sensationalism" journalist?

The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.

I don't see the sensationalism there. I see "we'll search what we want to search."

[WickedLou9]

I can understand searching non-us people entering the country. But a US citizen carrying a US passport who is standing on US soil is subject to a total and complete violation of thier rigths simply because they crossed into another country and then came back. Where is the logic there?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.

The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.

I don't see the sensationalism there. I see "we'll search what we want to search."

the appeals court hasn't released their ruling yet, "seems" is not case law

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I can understand searching non-us people entering the country. But a US citizen carrying a US passport who is standing on US soil is subject to a total and complete violation of thier rigths simply because they crossed into another country and then came back. Where is the logic there?

not a complete violation of their rights, but they have less because we need border security

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

not a complete violation of their rights, but they have less because we need border security

how does searching a hard drive make the border more secure? are agents looking to keep out viruses??

not sure if or is appropriate here

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

how does searching a hard drive make the border more secure? are agents looking to keep out viruses??

not sure if or is appropriate here

I believe you're looking for

Searching the content of someone's hard drive doesn't do anything for border security, if someone has shit on their HD that's potentially "dangerous" they can just email it in

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

how does searching a hard drive make the border more secure? are agents looking to keep out viruses??

not sure if or is appropriate here

From The Laptops Of Terrorists
Arik Hesseldahl, 04.29.05, 10:00 AM ET

If you can't catch terrorists, then the next best thing seems to be snatching their laptop computers. And as luck would have it, they're just as sloppy about protecting their sensitive personal information as the rest of us.

At least that appears to have been the case when U.S. military forces came surprisingly close to catching the terrorist mastermind of al Qaeda in Iraq, the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

On Feb. 20, the Pentagon says al-Zarqawi was in a truck heading from Fallujah to a meeting in Ramadi when U.S. forces pulled over one of the vehicles in his convoy. Another truck in the group turned around and sped away. When they finally caught up to that truck, Al-Zarqawi was gone, but he had left his laptop in the car. And what they found on it says some hopeful things about our chances of ultimately rooting out and capturing the bad guys.

It turns out that terrorists are just as lazy about protecting their data as your average PC owner. There were, according to news reports, recent digital pictures, apparently of al-Zarqawi, tucked away in the "My Pictures" folder common to PCs running Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Windows.

Reports have varied about the information found on the computer. Reportedly, among the nuggets are names and addresses of friendly contacts, information about al-Zarqawi's medical condition and, possibly, financial information. All of this is valuable, and reduces the number of rocks under which the lowlife can safely hide.

It's not the first time a computer used by a terrorist leader has wound up in official U.S. hands. In 2003, when Pakistani soldiers captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, they also found his laptop, which according to some reports contained a rather tantalizing array of information. That information included at least a dozen locations along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which had been used by the terrorist kingpin Osama bin-Laden himself.

Of course the intelligence analysts will have to consider the possibility that the laptop was intentionally left by who they think was al-Zarqawi to throw them off his scent. But if the machine proves to be one that belonged to an individual at or near the top of the U.S. list of most-wanted terrorists, then it should give us some hope about eventually bagging some of the biggest fish in the war on terror as the months and years unfold.

Bruce Hoffman, director of the Washington office of Rand and a terrorism expert, says terrorists have some of the same problems the rest of us do in trying to keep prying eyes from their data. "They tend not to have heavily encrypted computers, they're not using strong passwords. And just like business travelers, they lose their laptops."

Certainly there are ways to protect data. Several companies build software that encrypts sensitive files or that can create secure sections of a hard drive. I've played with scores of these programs over the years, but I generally use PGP Desktop, which among other operations allows you to encrypt your e-mail communication--provided that whomever you're sending the message to also uses the program--and locks sensitive files.

But for every step you take to ensure data security, there's an extra step required to get the information. This can become tiresome if you're impatient or need to use the information freely. It's just like having to lock and unlock a restroom door several times a day. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to see how a terrorist constantly on the move might find the need to constantly encrypt and de-crypt his files a pain in the neck.

The smart terrorists, Hoffman says, learn from these captures and adjust their habits accordingly. In the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, days, Osama bin-Laden was a regular user of a satellite phone, until he learned along with the rest of the world that the National Security Agency had been listening to his conversations and that officials there occasionally played a recording of him talking to his mother.

"The ones that survive do so through natural selection," Hoffman says. "They keep getting smarter, because they pay attention to the techniques used to capture the others."

Still, I find it strangely encouraging to think that the one bit of information that might one day lead us to the prize--Osama bin-Laden fitted for his own set of leg shackles--is just sitting somewhere on some lazy terrorist's laptop.

Forbes.com - Magazine Article

Everyone uses computers, including criminals.

not sure if or is appropriate here

[Ardentfrost]

Yeah. And even criminals have anuses. Therefore the whole population should get cavity searches.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Forbes.com - Magazine Article

Everyone uses computers, including criminals.

not sure if or is appropriate here

Yeah, because some border jockey is capable of looking for sensitive information pertaining to national security buried in a laptop

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Forbes.com - Magazine Article

Everyone uses computers, including criminals.

not sure if or is appropriate here

The military finding his computer and scouring it for information about his activities is equivalent to a border agent wanting to look through my laptop just to see what he can find?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yeah. And even criminals have anuses. Therefore the whole population should get cavity searches.

I never said everyone, but under reasonable suspicion yes they should. However the original post said that searching a hard drive would not make the country more secure.