scylis said:

Squire said:

scylis said:

Squire said:
For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.

ahh, but owning, keeping, and protecting your own property is. which is exactly what one of the biggest problems highlighted by this thread seeks to circumvent.

plus, for all of your travels, did you ever leave the country and return? a lot of the problems and incidents are occurring when entering the US. while the problem of theft from your checked bags is always there, most everything i've read about involving laptops both here and in many articles out there (a multitude of which have been linked to here) that are being carried with the passenger involve entering the country.

I think we covered this.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Happy Birthday!

the right to travel may not be explicitly written in the Constitution, but has been presumed by law and legal precedence, in cases such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), in which Justice Potter Stewart noted "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

i feel that the policies of the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and in some cases the US Customs department. i, and many others, also feel that it violates the presumed right of privacy established by legal precedence in a manner similar to the presumed right of travel.

most every precedent i've found involves interstate travel, but that fits the traveling that you have been doing. nowhere have i found specific methods for such travel mentioned.

while i can understand heavier security checks upon returning to the country, the severity of what many believe to be misconduct is out of line with the presumed right to privacy that has been established for US citizens. i also believe it goes against the principals we like to espouse to the rest of the world when such invasive security measures are directed at foreign travelers.

Squire said:

scylis said:

Squire said:

scylis said:

Squire said:
For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.

ahh, but owning, keeping, and protecting your own property is. which is exactly what one of the biggest problems highlighted by this thread seeks to circumvent.

plus, for all of your travels, did you ever leave the country and return? a lot of the problems and incidents are occurring when entering the US. while the problem of theft from your checked bags is always there, most everything i've read about involving laptops both here and in many articles out there (a multitude of which have been linked to here) that are being carried with the passenger involve entering the country.

I think we covered this.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Happy Birthday!

the right to travel may not be explicitly written in the Constitution, but has been presumed by law and legal precedence, in cases such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), in which Justice Potter Stewart noted "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

i feel that the policies of the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and in some cases the US Customs department. i, and many others, also feel that it violates the presumed right of privacy established by legal precedence in a manner similar to the presumed right of travel.

most every precedent i've found involves interstate travel, but that fits the traveling that you have been doing. nowhere have i found specific methods for such travel mentioned.

while i can understand heavier security checks upon returning to the country, the severity of what many believe to be misconduct is out of line with the presumed right to privacy that has been established for US citizens. i also believe it goes against the principals we like to espouse to the rest of the world when such invasive security measures are directed at foreign travelers.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no presumed right to privacy. And the current doctrine doesn't go any further than the right to fuck who you want, use contraception if you want, look at porn at home if you want, etc. . . I hope you're seeing a trend here. In no way does any so-called "right to privacy" abrogate the government's ability to monitor and control it's borders.

When a federal court of appeals uses and cites language like "axiomatic," "The 'longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless `reasonable' has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself,'" "well-recognized exception," "inherent authority," and "broad authority to search," you ain't gonna win with no right to privacy. They'd treat you like you were on the Gong Show.

I'm not even going to go into the fact that the "precedent" you quote is a civil rights case addressing attempts to deter African Americans from interstate travel. Oh wait I just did.

Squire said:
In his Shapiro concurrence Justice Stewart discusses Guess and then points out that any private or government interference that "so clearly impinges upon the constitutional right of interstate travel must be shown to reflect a compelling governmental interest." Shapiro, 394 U.S. at 643-44. Ruh roh. Guess what that compelling governmental interest is?

scylis said:

Squire said:

scylis said:

Squire said:

scylis said:

Squire said:
For 2006 and about a fourth of 2007, my job was to fly all over the country to take depositions. Some weeks I was in the air 5 days out of the week and I always had my laptop. I never felt like any of the searches to which I submitted violated my rights, but that is because I understand that flying is not a constitutional right.

ahh, but owning, keeping, and protecting your own property is. which is exactly what one of the biggest problems highlighted by this thread seeks to circumvent.

plus, for all of your travels, did you ever leave the country and return? a lot of the problems and incidents are occurring when entering the US. while the problem of theft from your checked bags is always there, most everything i've read about involving laptops both here and in many articles out there (a multitude of which have been linked to here) that are being carried with the passenger involve entering the country.

I think we covered this.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Happy Birthday!

the right to travel may not be explicitly written in the Constitution, but has been presumed by law and legal precedence, in cases such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), in which Justice Potter Stewart noted "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

i feel that the policies of the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and in some cases the US Customs department. i, and many others, also feel that it violates the presumed right of privacy established by legal precedence in a manner similar to the presumed right of travel.

most every precedent i've found involves interstate travel, but that fits the traveling that you have been doing. nowhere have i found specific methods for such travel mentioned.

while i can understand heavier security checks upon returning to the country, the severity of what many believe to be misconduct is out of line with the presumed right to privacy that has been established for US citizens. i also believe it goes against the principals we like to espouse to the rest of the world when such invasive security measures are directed at foreign travelers.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no presumed right to privacy. And the current doctrine doesn't go any further than the right to fuck who you want, use contraception if you want, look at porn at home if you want, etc. . . I hope you're seeing a trend here. In no way does any so-called "right to privacy" abrogate the government's ability to monitor and control it's borders.

When a federal court of appeals uses and cites language like "axiomatic," "The 'longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless `reasonable' has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself,'" "well-recognized exception," "inherent authority," and "broad authority to search," you ain't gonna win with no right to privacy. They'd treat you like you were on the Gong Show.

I'm not even going to go into the fact that the "precedent" you quote is a civil rights case addressing attempts to deter African Americans from interstate travel. Oh wait I just did.

how does it being a civil right's case make it any less pertinent to the discussion? does it mean that it only applies to african americans?

scylis said:

nothing specific, almost always. saying "national security" is bullshit and you know it.

scylis said:
furthermore, why do you think that the government should view travel to another country as just cause for search and seizure of electronic devices and the data stored on them?

scylis said:
i'm ok with them x-raying my luggage, by carry-on bags, and whatnot. i don't have a problem with them inspecting my baggage if something looks suspicious when they do so. i don't have a problem with extra scrutiny in such a manner while going through customs. but i have a problem with searches that really have no bearing on airport security and safe air travel. x-raying baggage and using metal detectors and chemical sensors and all that can do very helpful things like detect bombs and weapons and such. what exactly are the files on my computer do to endanger the lives of fellow travelers and the public in general while i'm flying?

are they going to blow up?

are they going to be used to stab someone or slit their throat?

what does going through the files and contents of mp3 players, laptops, and cell phones do to increase security that x-rays, chemical sensors, and metal detectors don't?

scylis said:
what about all the things that just go missing? what's the compelling government interest for that? is the world safer for me losing my digital camera to some douchenozzle of a TSA employee? or someone's engagement ring? was it the final component to a thermonuclear device, or something? if they're going to sift through my physical shit then i want to get something out of it. i don't see how i'm getting anything out of any of the bullshit that's been brought up in this thread.

scylis said:
government agencies can only hide behind a "compelling government interest" like "national security" only so long as we let them. if there's no real precedents to help us, let's start fucking making some. let's elect people that feel the same way. congresspeople that will draft laws to stop this shit. presidents that will appoint Supreme Court Justices and such that will help check these abuses. let's actually make the agencies responsible for this sort of mockery of security actually work towards the good of all, not allow employees to work for their own good at our expense under the guise of security.

i want a TSA and Customs department that uses methods that make some fucking sense. i don't want them absorbed into the BS "Department of Homeland Security" that doesn't feel that it can be held accountable for it's intrusions and misconduct. fuck, i don't really think i want a "Department of Homeland Security" at all, if it's actions over the last 8 years is the benchmark for future conduct.

Squire said:
Context. The case has NOTHING to do with Amend. IV search and seizure and EVERYTHING to do with the Civil Rights acts, due process and equal protection. You've got to actually read and comprehend the opinions and not just Google shit.

GONG! Now pay attention because I know this is like the fourth time I've fucking posted this: "[T]he longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless `reasonable' has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 619 (1977).

All the language I quoted from Ickes establishing the constitutionality of border searches are from cases 20-40 years old. LONG before anyone got their undies in a bundle about overreaching national security policies.

I don't know the answers to these questions and customs probably doesn't either. But I'm not gonna trust any answer you, the random guy, citizen or not, bringing electronic hardware into the country, give me.

Wow. Stretching here, dontchathink?

Feel better? I think I heard "God Bless America" building to a crescendo whilst reading this. Brought a tear to my eye, really.

You are coming back into the country. From somewhere else where shit that is illegal here might not be there. And so on. An example: I let you leave the house and go to a conference on biohazardous materials with the condition that I am able to ensure you are biohazard free upon your return. You return to my house and a dude from Finland comes with you. I'm happy to let you both in, but I'm gonna make sure neither of you has any anthrax in your pockets. Capice?

scylis said:

i bolded the pertinent and completely avoided point i was making, guy. try again.

SockPuppet said:

That's the heart of it, if I've understood this at all.

Shiny_metal_ass said:

Seriously, what could be on an electronic device that couldn't be transmitted over the internet? There is 0, I repeat, 0 justification for these searches and seizures, even if they are technically "legal". Jim Crow laws were legal, so was slavery, doesn't mean that they were ever justified or right.

By Ryan Singel lSeptember 23, 2008 | 2:03:45 PM
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff likes to point to the recent publication of the Border Patrol's policy on examining laptops and documents at the border as an example of the new openness that his department is striving for.

But the new policy itself -- allowing border agents free rein to read and sift through traveler's papers and laptops -- turns out to be a much further departure from past policies than previously known, according to new documents wrested loose from the government by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Asian Law Caucus via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The old policy (.pdf) -- largely established in 1986 -- included a heading in bold reading: Customs Officers Should Not Read Personal Correspondence.

The U.S. Customs Service must guard the rights of individuals being inspected to ensure their personal privacy is protected. Therefore, as a general rule, Customs officers should not read personal correspondence [...]

The new policy? It doesn't even mention personal letters as a special category.

Instead in the 2008 policy (.pdf), private letters, text message and emails are treated the same as any other information carried on a traveler's person or in his cell phone or in his laptop.

In the course of a border search, and absent individualized suspicion, officers can review and analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States.

Compare that to how the 1986 policy -- as modified in 2000 -- instructs officers how to deal with printed material brought in by a traveler:

The U.S. Customs Service must guard the rights of individuals being inspected to ensure their personal privacy is protected. Therefore, as a general rule, Customs officers should not read personal correspondence [...]

As opposed to reading content, Customs officers may glance at documents and papers to see if they appear to be merchandise. [...] If, after glance at the documents or papers, the officer reasonably suspects that they relate to any of the categories in section 6.4.1 of this directive (books for sale, sedition, embargo violations, etc.), the officer may read the documents.

By contrast, the new policy allows agents to copy documents or laptops without having to show any probable cause.

That disturbs Shirin Sinnar, an attorney for the Asian Law Caucus, which was prompted to sue for the documents after what they say were dozens of complaints from Muslims and South Asians about intense questioning and searches at the border.

"For more than 20 years, the government implicitly recognized that reading and copying the letters, diaries, and personal papers of travelers without reason would chill Americans' rights to free speech and free expression," said Sinnar. "But now customs officials can probe into the thoughts and lives of ordinary travelers without any suspicion at all."

But DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa says it should come as no surprise that the policy changed after 9/11 and that the government decided to use every legal means to prevent another attack.

"The decision to change standards reflects the realities of the post 9/11 environment," Kudwa noting that even under the old policy, officers could glance at material without having individualized suspicion.

The courts have generally sided with the government. Most recently the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the border agents didn't need to be say why it wanted to look into a laptop -- dismissing arguments that laptops are more analogous to a person's mind than to a suitcase.

That ruling expanded the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the government to search a person entering or leaving the country without having to have any cause to do so.