Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/28/09
-OR-
When you travel overseas use it as a thin client and connect back to your work / home machine to retrieve the data you need.
Problem solved.
08/28/09
-OR-
Leave your building blueprints and kiddie porn at home.
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
Rules like this completely miss the point.
08/28/09
The rules regarding search-and-seizure has always been that border searches require no warrant. There are some areas of the country that have always been permitted to play by different rules. Military bases are one. "Borders" are another.
The First Congressional Congress made it legal.
"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."
Authorized by the First Congress,88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops.
This type of search and seizure at the border is legal. It has been legal for decades. It is not Marxist nor Socialist nor is it truly the product of 9/11. It is a search and seizure which is an exception - known as the Border Exception - and it is an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.
If you are interested read the Supreme Court case: United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
As the Ninth Circuit very intelligently decided in US v. Arnold, the files on your computer are cargo. There is no functional difference between a document you typed into Word and the printout. Imagine you had a locked box that you refused to open. They'd seize the box.
The printout is subject to search; the file is the exact same thing. Airports are borders. Different standard applies.
Many things are legal and constitution that may give you the wicked heebie-jeebies. If a city wants to install security cameras in all of its parks to watch for crime, that's not a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights as you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park. Does it go against the original intent of the Constitution? Probably. Is it Constitutionally-permissible? Yes.
The Border Exception is nothing new, is legal and constitutional, and has its basis in the genesis of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if they're look for child pornography, bomb schematics, or a kugel recipe. Your computer may be searched at the border.
08/28/09
That's why you're well known here: Because you know what you're talking about.
08/28/09
08/28/09
I hate security at airports, but since I've got nothing to hide, I don't mind all that much. I'm sure I'd disagree if they took my MacBook, but that would be in anger.
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
This is a HUGE problem and contributes to letting the government get away with this sort of crap. You shouldn't be OK with a violation of privacy like this.
What's worse is that you don't even seem to care much, despite writing an article about it. You could at least be confident in your decision to support it instead of taking a "whatever" attitude. That's the problem with America. People don't care enough.
08/28/09
08/28/09
This is exactly how government agencies sneak in invasive policies. First it was to combat terrorism: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight terrorism? Then it was to fight kiddy porn: who's gonna argue against giving up some privacy to fight kiddy porn? Next, though, it'll be ACTA and we'll want to fight that, even if it's 1 outta 200M, but the policy will already be thoroughly in place by then.
08/28/09
Bullshit. I don't care if some guy on the plane has actual photographs of donkeys having sex with six year old girls - it is not a flight safety issue, which, ostensibly, is why they are snooping through our stuff.
Bombs. Not contraband. Get it through your head.
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
But since privacy is not very high on most Americans' list of priorities, let's tackle this issue from a different angle, shall we?
Is this really the best use of our resources?
If a terrorist knows their laptop may be searched at the border, they will simply transmit their data over the internet.
But let's say they did try to smuggle data across the border. The data on the laptop would most likely be encrypted, and therefore out of reach of the TSA agent; even with 30 days to attempt to gain access.
So, given how unlikely it is that the TSA will ever catch a terrorist by scouring through your most private data and corporate secrets, do you really want them spending hundreds of thousands of hours on these sorts of searches?
Wouldn't you rather they spent all that extra time searching vehicles and bags for dirty bombs and such? Stuff the terrorists actually have no choice but to attempt to smuggle across the border?
08/28/09
08/28/09
08/28/09
I'm not saying every TSA rentacop has the capability, I just think that if the government found a laptop that they really wanted to get the information from, they'd probably be able to do it.
08/28/09
So I guess by the same logic you'd be fine with, say, imprisoning a thousand people without due process?
This rule is outrageous. While there may be a remote chance that someone might be carrying illicit materials on a laptop, the practice is so invasive, so chilling that it completely negates any potential positive effect. It is an assault on the first amendment and it cannot be allowed to happen.
08/28/09
This is asinine and goes against every principle on which this country was founded.
Wait, aren't The People in charge of the government in this country? How did we ever let this BS happen? Time to write our representatives and vote them out of office if they keep this crap up.