If Your Hard Drive Could Testify ...

[RightinNYC]

If Your Hard Drive Could Testify ... - New York Times

A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories,” the officer found child pornography.

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.

One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit.

There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold.

“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”

Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and — the clincher, of course — information about reporters’ “confidential sources and story leads.”

But Judge Pregerson’s decision seems to be headed for reversal. 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.

This is a really interesting case. I'm not sure how I come down on the issue. On the one hand, searching a person's laptop is incredibly intrusive and seems, at first impression, to be just plain wrong. On the other hand, they do have the right to examine anything coming into the country.

The government went even further in the case of Sebastien Boucher, a Canadian who lives in New Hampshire. Mr. Boucher crossed the Canadian border by car about a year ago, and a customs agent noticed a laptop in the back seat.

Asked whether he had child pornography on his laptop, Mr. Boucher said he was not sure. He said he downloaded a lot of pornography but deleted child pornography when he found it.

Some of the files on Mr. Boucher’s computer were encrypted using a program called Pretty Good Privacy, and Mr. Boucher helped the agent look at them, apparently by entering an encryption code. The agent said he saw lots of revolting pornography involving children.

The government seized the laptop. But when it tried to open the encrypted files again, it could not. A grand jury instructed Mr. Boucher to provide the password.

But a federal magistrate judge quashed that subpoena in November, saying that requiring Mr. Boucher to provide it would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Last week, the government appealed.

The magistrate judge, Jerome J. Niedermeier of Federal District Court in Burlington, Vt., used an analogy from Supreme Court precedent. It is one thing to require a defendant to surrender a key to a safe and another to make him reveal its combination.

This case is even more depressing. The guy sounds like a grade A scumbag, but forcing someone to give a password really is a violation of the 5th amendment. This particular case might come out differently because the guy shared it once, but what happens then? Wouldn't everyone just refuse to enter the password to log onto the laptop in the first place?

 

[Donc]

I have no doubts where I stand on it, its unconstitutional. I would have no problem letting them see my beat up Toshiba, but for them to just willly nilly demand to look what’s on the hard drive??? George Orwell was right he just had the date wrong.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

They have no right to read the contents of your hard drive at customs. Just like they do not have the right to read your business papers.

 

[rivrrat]

They can look at my hard drive as soon as they show me a warrant.

 

[jfuh]

Doesn't this fall under unreasonable search and seizure? Flipping through my suitcase for harmful items after it is revealed on an Xray machine or the dope dog picking it up is one thing - that's not unreasonable.
But simply scrummaging through my hard drive for the hell of it - I don't think that's reasonable.
Sure the customs have the authority to be checking just about anything that comes into this country, but when's the last time you were subjected to a full on cavity search just for the hell of it? Unless there is probable cause I simply don't see why anyone should be subjected to such treatment - as is with prying around inside a hard drive - feel free to strip the comp, but a hard drive search would be similar to a cavity search. So show me the warrant.
As was above definitely seems too Orwellian for my tastes.

 

[TOJ]

They can look at my hard drive as soon as they show me a warrant.

Or they can refuse you entry into the country.

 

[Tashah]

I've gone through US Customs dozens of times with a lap top. No one has ever hassled me about it.

 

[jfuh]

I've gone through US Customs dozens of times with a lap top. No one has ever hassled me about it.

That's on par as saying I've played the lottery hundreds of times but never won.

 

[Tashah]

That's on par as saying I've played the lottery hundreds of times but never won.

My personal experience only... not an all-encompassing metric.

 

[VTA]

I've gone through US Customs dozens of times with a lap top. No one has ever hassled me about it.

Because beautiful women rarely carry child pornography.:2wave:

 

[Travelsonic]

Or they can refuse you entry into the country.

Hmmm.... I thought not since it was irrelivant to boot.

 

[ARealConservative]

On the other hand, they do have the right to examine anything coming into the country.

Only individuals have rights.

The government doesn't have a right to search my laptop. We might allow them this power, but don't ever claim they have the right.

 

[RightinNYC]

Only individuals have rights.

The government doesn't have a right to search my laptop. We might allow them this power, but don't ever claim they have the right.

Should have said "power."

Dammit, and I'm usually the one who harps on that too :2razz:

 

[RightinNYC]

I have no doubts where I stand on it, its unconstitutional. I would have no problem letting them see my beat up Toshiba, but for them to just willly nilly demand to look what’s on the hard drive??? George Orwell was right he just had the date wrong.

They have no right to read the contents of your hard drive at customs. Just like they do not have the right to read your business papers.

They can look at my hard drive as soon as they show me a warrant.

Doesn't this fall under unreasonable search and seizure? Flipping through my suitcase for harmful items after it is revealed on an Xray machine or the dope dog picking it up is one thing - that's not unreasonable.
But simply scrummaging through my hard drive for the hell of it - I don't think that's reasonable.
Sure the customs have the authority to be checking just about anything that comes into this country, but when's the last time you were subjected to a full on cavity search just for the hell of it? Unless there is probable cause I simply don't see why anyone should be subjected to such treatment - as is with prying around inside a hard drive - feel free to strip the comp, but a hard drive search would be similar to a cavity search. So show me the warrant.
As was above definitely seems too Orwellian for my tastes.

Like the article mentions, the gov. does not have to have a warrant to search anything at the border. The standard that they use is that anything can be searched without cause, unless the search would be "especially invasive," in which case they only need a "reasonable suspicion."

I think the best way to move forward is the way that one judge suggests - consider a search of someone's laptop to be invasive, thus requiring a guard to have to have reasonable suspicion in order to search it.

 

[justone]

Because beautiful women rarely carry child pornography.:2wave:

You know, it always hunts women. They spend their time in front of a mirror picking insufficiencies in their look, they don’t care about their minds, but they always find something to question, - is my belly button falls too much in, are me nipples sticking out 1/16 ‘’ less than perfect, especially the left one, my nose, it is certainly too log/short/thick,. but if I put this shoe on, at least Ican see that this brand makes me ankle rise look beautiful, all I have to do is to twist it a little bit to the left, a little bit more, it does not matter that it looks unnatural, it is all natural for me. You can tell her that she is beautiful, I mean if you want to win, you have to tell her that she is beautiful, she is hot,…. and then you will spend a day arguing that her hips are not too thick . Everyone has said to Tashah that she is beautiful, but she still makes a post for you to repeat. You are getting into an endless discussion.

The truth is that nobody searches Tashah’s laptop and everybody gives her a free pass. It is human. If you see something ugly moving on you, you do not want to talk to it, to touch it, to search it. Tashah can bring a nuclear bomb through, and they would say: OK, OK, whatever you are, go, just go, let us get to that lady in blue on the high hills, there should be a bomb there.

 

[VTA]

You know, it always hunts women. They spend their time in front of a mirror picking insufficiencies in their look, they don’t care about their minds, but they always find something to question, - is my belly button falls too much in, are me nipples sticking out 1/16 ‘’ less than perfect, especially the left one, my nose, it is certainly too log/short/thick,. but if I put this shoe on, at least Ican see that this brand makes me ankle rise look beautiful, all I have to do is to twist it a little bit to the left, a little bit more, it does not matter that it looks unnatural, it is all natural for me. You can tell her that she is beautiful, I mean if you want to win, you have to tell her that she is beautiful, she is hot,…. and then you will spend a day arguing that her hips are not too thick . Everyone has said to Tashah that she is beautiful, but she still makes a post for you to repeat. You are getting into an endless discussion.

The truth is that nobody searches Tashah’s laptop and everybody gives her a free pass. It is human. If you see something ugly moving on you, you do not want to talk to it, to touch it, to search it. Tashah can bring a nuclear bomb through, and they would say: OK, OK, whatever you are, go, just go, let us get to that lady in blue on the high hills, there should be a bomb there.

What on God's green earth are talking about?

 

[Hatuey]

Or they can refuse you entry into the country.

On what grounds?

 

[justone]

What on God's green earth are talking about?

Tasha's look?

 

[VTA]

Tasha's look?

Why?
Did you take umbrage at my remark?

 

[Hatuey]

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 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.

The serial rape of our constitution continues.

 

[justone]

Why?
Did you take umbrage at my remark?

You have made an assumption that they don’t hassle beautiful women. My experience and knowledge and life observations show that they would most likely hassle beautiful women and let pass the ugly ones. How would it be fun for them to hassle ugly women, but not beautiful ones? Thus we can make a conclusion about Tashah’s look, since she says she gets an easy pass.

 

[VTA]

You have made an assumption that they don’t hassle beautiful women. My experience and knowledge and life observations show that they would most likely hassle beautiful women and let pass the ugly ones. How would it be fun for them to hassle ugly women, but not beautiful ones? Thus we can make a conclusion about Tashah’s look, since she says she gets an easy pass.

You may be digging a little deep for conversation, my friend. :lol:
I made no such assumption: I directed a small compliment to a woman, who's picture I have seen, mixed with the contention that for the most part, the only animals taking part in child pornography are men.

 

[RightinNYC]

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.

The serial rape of our constitution continues.

The Border Search Exemption has formally existed since 1977 and existed in practice far before that, so don't go trying to blame it on Bush.

 

[justone]

You may be digging a little deep for conversation, my friend. :lol:
I made no such assumption: I directed a small compliment to a woman, who's picture I have seen, mixed with the contention that for the most part, the only animals taking part in child pornography are men.

You answered to her post. Certainly if she had some brains, she could know that the only animals taking part in child pornography were men. We all know why. Thus her post was nothing more than asking for a compliment.


What was her need?


Then you can reread my answers.


And there is no digging unless you want to say that your compliment reflects the truth of life observations and mine is not. Then again – would you stay a minute longer with a beautiful woman or a minute shorter with an ugly one?Honestly? Only honestly?

 

[RightinNYC]

You know, it always hunts women. They spend their time in front of a mirror picking insufficiencies in their look, they don’t care about their minds, but they always find something to question, - is my belly button falls too much in, are me nipples sticking out 1/16 ‘’ less than perfect, especially the left one, my nose, it is certainly too log/short/thick,. but if I put this shoe on, at least Ican see that this brand makes me ankle rise look beautiful, all I have to do is to twist it a little bit to the left, a little bit more, it does not matter that it looks unnatural, it is all natural for me. You can tell her that she is beautiful, I mean if you want to win, you have to tell her that she is beautiful, she is hot,…. and then you will spend a day arguing that her hips are not too thick . Everyone has said to Tashah that she is beautiful, but she still makes a post for you to repeat. You are getting into an endless discussion.

The truth is that nobody searches Tashah’s laptop and everybody gives her a free pass. It is human. If you see something ugly moving on you, you do not want to talk to it, to touch it, to search it. Tashah can bring a nuclear bomb through, and they would say: OK, OK, whatever you are, go, just go, let us get to that lady in blue on the high hills, there should be a bomb there.

You answered to her post. Certainly if she had some brains, she could know that the only animals taking part in child pornography were men. We all know why. Thus her post was nothing more than asking for a compliment.


What was her need?


Then you can reread my answers.


And there is no digging unless you want to say that your compliment reflects the truth of life observations and mine is not. Then again – would you stay a minute longer with a beautiful woman or a minute shorter with an ugly one?Honestly? Only honestly?

I'll ask again - what in god's green earth are you talking about? Are you trying to make some sort of broad social commentary, or make a claim about Tashah's appearance? I don't think any of those has anything to do with this thread, so feel free to take it elsewhere or, better yet, just drop it.