Inbound Usa Travelers

[britmaveric]

Been back/forth to Yankland hundreds of times and notebooks never been even sniffed at. Customs/Border - are perhaps most powerful police in the world and they can throw you in the poke for 48hrs without cause. You aren't technically in the country til you exit, so be on notice your rights are severely limted, nought to worry about in reality.

[sgtpeppers]

could always encrypt stuff onto some 4.7GB DVDs and post a few sets to friends back home before you leave.

If they conviscate that u only lost, what , a few dollars.

if they conviscate the laptop that would suck.

[NotNew2You]

didn't they always have the power to rifle through them without probable cause?

I had customs officials search through my luggage several times long before 911 and never once did they have "probable cause", I don't really see the difference between them rifling through my luggage and them rifling through my laptop...

The only problem with the above is that we have this quaint old document written on velum parchment called The Constitution Of the United States Of America and its Amendments. In this document, the people of [read also "in"] the United States (not just citizens) were granted certain inalienable rights. The forth Amendment of the Constitution states:

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. [Emphasis added.]

US Supreme Court decisions have also found an unenumerated general "right to privacy" to be unstated but implicit in many of the protections written into the Constitution, including the above quoted Forth Amendment.

Therefore, there is concern by many people, including members of the US Congress (as quoted in the Washington Post article), about these apparent searches and seizures of peoples' electronic "effects" without probable cause.

There is a reply I once heard people should give to census takers when they come to question you at your house..."only sheep are counted." One could also argue that only sheep give-up their constitutional rights without a fight!

[britmaveric]

Not in Yank territory until you exit Customs/Passport control - so don't think search/seizure applies.

[OriginalPoster]

didn't they always have the power to rifle through them without probable cause?

I had customs officials search through my luggage several times long before 911 and never once did they have "probable cause", I don't really see the difference between them rifling through my luggage and them rifling through my laptop...

The only problem with the above is that we have this quaint old document written on velum parchment called The Constitution Of the United States Of America and its Amendments. In this document, the people of [read also "in"] the United States (not just citizens) were granted certain inalienable rights. The forth Amendment of the Constitution states:

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. [Emphasis added.]

US Supreme Court decisions have also found an unenumerated general "right to privacy" to be unstated but implicit in many of the protections written into the Constitution, including the above quoted Forth Amendment.

Therefore, there is concern by many people, including members of the US Congress (as quoted in the Washington Post article), about these apparent searches and seizures of peoples' electronic "effects" without probable cause.

There is a reply I once heard people should give to census takers when they come to question you at your house..."only sheep are counted." One could also argue that only sheep give-up their constitutional rights without a fight!

My question was how searching luggage is different that seaching notebook computer. Customs officers have been searching the former, both with & without probable cause, since the time of George Washington. If such searches are unconsitituational now, why were they not before?

[NotNew2You]

Not in Yank territory until you exit Customs/Passport control - so don't think search/seizure applies.

Brit...not sure why you always making this argument...that one is not in US territory so not afforded the protections of US law until one exits customs/passport control. The moment a plane crosses into US airspace (12 miles offshore from any land-border of the US) one has "entered" the United States and are subject to, and protected by, its laws. To stretch this point even further, the Supremes have recently ruled that even Gitmo is US "territory" for purposes of rights protected by the constitution, and therefore, its resident rag-heads are protected by provision of the Constitution.

So certainly non-enemy combatant passengers standing around an arrivals hall of an airport are in the US and protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[britmaveric]

Not unreasonable..... and like or not it will still happen and it happens everywhere in the world when you are within Custom/Border's jurisdiction.

[NotNew2You]

My question was how searching luggage is different that seaching notebook computer.

The difference between searching a piece of luggage and a notebook computer is one of expectations. In certain realms of one's person, US citizens have an expectation of a zone of privacy and this zone may not be invaded without probable/just cause. This zone would extend to one's thoughts and writings, which are often recorded in written form on a notebook. Also, one's business and financial information (again often on a notebook) one expects is private and not open for inspection by government officials without cause.

One does not necessarily have these same privacy expectations about the contents of a suitcase. If the suitcase contained an envelope with financial data in written form, then again, one would expect this to remain private and not be opened by inspecting officers without probable/just cause.

[OriginalPoster]

My question was how searching luggage is different that seaching notebook computer.

The difference between searching a piece of luggage and a notebook computer is one of expectations. In certain realms of one's person, US citizens have an expectation of a zone of privacy and this zone may not be invaded without probable/just cause. This zone would extend to one's thoughts and writings, which are often recorded in written form on a notebook. Also, one's business and financial information (again often on a notebook) one expects is private and not open for inspection by government officials without cause.

One does not necessarily have these same privacy expectations about the contents of a suitcase. If the suitcase contained an envelope with financial data in written form, then again, one would expect this to remain private and not be opened by inspecting officers without probable/just cause.

Interestingly though, the artices above states that the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently rejected that argument. And a further google seach turns up that in that ruling the court was explicit in rejecting "the defendant's contention that his laptop was analogous to his home or his mind because of the amount of storage and type of personal content that could be held there." That appeals court, by the way, is the appeals court in the US with the largest percentage of judges nominated by democrats and is known for it's comparatively liberal rulings. Thus, it seems that if the current policy by Customs policy regarding laptops breaks new ground legally (or consititutionally) it must be because of potentially taking the laptops off-premises or seizing them, not because they are being searched per se.

[NotNew2You]

Interestingly though, the artices above states that the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently rejected that argument. And a further google seach turns up that in that ruling the court was explicit in rejecting "the defendant's contention that his laptop was analogous to his home or his mind because of the amount of storage and type of personal content that could be held there."

Would be interesting to read the Court's decision. I don't think it is much of leap these days to consider one's notebook or personal computer an extension of a person's mind, or at least their personal papers/diaries. Most people under the age of McCain record and store most of their personal, financial, and other data that they would once would have kept in a diary or on papers stored in their desk at home. It is certainly not the government's right to rummage through these papers without cause so hard to see why they wouldn't extend the protection to a modern "file cabinet." It's most likely the aging judges on the appeals court are, like McCain, totally clueless on how and what computers are used for (I hear McCain doesn't even know how to send or read an email or find a website...even his own ).

In any case, the decision of the 9th Circuit is now the law in the Western states where it has jurisdiction. Maybe some other districts will rule differently and uphold our diminishing constitutional rights.

[Cuban]

I believe more than a few companies have since issued new guidelines for employees travelling into the US. The US situation opens up all possibilities including industrial espionage...

I am aware of at least one major law firm that has now supplied all travelling staff with effectively blank laptops - they only have a basic OS and the ability to connect to the company's center computer system. ALL client data and other information is stored on company servers and nothing is held or saved on the local HDD.

With the increased use of mobile computing and both normal theft and offical 'theft' from the likes of customs staff - I feel that the only way to be clear from suspection is not to carry one with you, or if you do - make it blank, basic OS and save all data and tempory files on USB.

What has always bothered me is the the risk of suspection due to random connection - consider a single email address that is used for some net-crime, be it terrorist or pedo related. For whatever reason you are sent an email (maybe in error) or CCed in a joke email from that person - you are now linked to them, with super computers and world wide tracking with Echelon you become enemy of the state in a flash.

[adammike]

The dutch customs are profiling passengers mainly from cambodia and thailand for pedo material,

they will not give any information out about what they are looking for so as not to alert suspects

so they can change there behavior and dress!!!!.

They are training so they can search "laptops,cameras and usb drives"

They admit its hard searching through files thats why they profile.

So if they suspect you expect to get a serious search for that tiny usb drive that is hidden in

a pocket of a pair of trousers packed at the bottom of your suitcase.

Thank god I travel light an Ipod and basic phone without a camera thats it.

One thought if you have a top DSLR camera and a laptop with 500gb drive

you better be able to show them more than 3 sunsets of pattaya beach

[OriginalPoster]

Interestingly though, the artices above states that the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently rejected that argument. And a further google seach turns up that in that ruling the court was explicit in rejecting "the defendant's contention that his laptop was analogous to his home or his mind because of the amount of storage and type of personal content that could be held there."

Would be interesting to read the Court's decision. I don't think it is much of leap these days to consider one's notebook or personal computer an extension of a person's mind, or at least their personal papers/diaries. Most people under the age of McCain record and store most of their personal, financial, and other data that they would once would have kept in a diary or on papers stored in their desk at home. It is certainly not the government's right to rummage through these papers without cause so hard to see why they wouldn't extend the protection to a modern "file cabinet." It's most likely the aging judges on the appeals court are, like McCain, totally clueless on how and what computers are used for (I hear McCain doesn't even know how to send or read an email or find a website...even his own ).

In any case, the decision of the 9th Circuit is now the law in the Western states where it has jurisdiction. Maybe some other districts will rule differently and uphold our diminishing constitutional rights.

Apparently there was a similar case in the 4th Circuit court of appeals also, with similar outcome.

I'm not sure how much it influences judges in decisions like this, but the case decided by the 9th circuit appeals court involved a defendent who apparently did in fact have child porn on his computer, or at least enough evidence of same that authorities were able to get a search warrant to search his house and to convince a grand jury to indict. Perhaps it would have come out different if the defendent was more sympathetic, perhaps a grandmother from Iowa that was strip searched because she refused to give the Customs Agents the password for the MS Word file containing the recipe for her oatmeal cookies, rather than a deviant returning from the Phillipines.

Here's a link to the ruling in the case:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelement

[dingdongrb]

Interestingly though, the artices above states that the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently rejected that argument. And a further google seach turns up that in that ruling the court was explicit in rejecting "the defendant's contention that his laptop was analogous to his home or his mind because of the amount of storage and type of personal content that could be held there."

Would be interesting to read the Court's decision. I don't think it is much of leap these days to consider one's notebook or personal computer an extension of a person's mind, or at least their personal papers/diaries. Most people under the age of McCain record and store most of their personal, financial, and other data that they would once would have kept in a diary or on papers stored in their desk at home. It is certainly not the government's right to rummage through these papers without cause so hard to see why they wouldn't extend the protection to a modern "file cabinet." It's most likely the aging judges on the appeals court are, like McCain, totally clueless on how and what computers are used for (I hear McCain doesn't even know how to send or read an email or find a website...even his own ).

In any case, the decision of the 9th Circuit is now the law in the Western states where it has jurisdiction. Maybe some other districts will rule differently and uphold our diminishing constitutional rights.

Apparently there was a similar case in the 4th Circuit court of appeals also, with similar outcome.

I'm not sure how much it influences judges in decisions like this, but in the case decided by the 9th circuit appeals court involved a defendent of who apparently did in fact have child porn on his computer, or at least enough evidence of same that they were able to get a search warrant to search his house and for a grand jury to bring charges against him. Perhaps it would have come out different if the defendent was more sympathetic, perhaps a grandmother from Iowa that was strip searched because she refused to give the Customs Agents the password for the MS Word file containing the recipe for her oatmeal cookies, rather than a deviant returning from the Phillipines. Also, the airport search occured when Clinton was still in office, making it hard to link the search with Bush having turned the US in "police state".

Here's a link to the ruling in the case:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelement

Must be some dam_n good cookies.....

[hanumanix]

Yes, we have talked about this here before. Another symptom of not-so-friendly fascism caused by hysteria.

True