Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
I worked as an environmental inspector a while back, and saw this one guy that worked for the town about once a week. One day he showed up without a leg, and I was really uncomfortable asking the question: "um...what happened to you leg, man?" #xkcd
10/19/09
"Ahhhhhhh!!! Holy Shit"
I think he probably should have mentioned something first. I really had no idea and was caught way off guard.
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