Decius wrote:

Customs and Border Patrol at the Department of Homeland Security was just given the green light to search and seize laptops at the border, without probable cause, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They can deny entry to anyone who refuses to give up their laptops and password. This is an affront to our progressive values of privacy and protection from unwarranted search and seizure.

This is the CAP Action Campaign I mentioned during my talk at the Last HOPE. You can use this form to request that Customs perform a privacy impact assessment on the practice.

In short, why is the government doing this? What do they have to gain from this?

flynn23 wrote:
In short, why is the government doing this? What do they have to gain from this?

Rhetorical, I know, but because they can. Their lawyers think its in their interest to seek the broadest possible authority they can seek and apply it as broadly as they can. This fits with the overall administration policies post 9-11 - maximize the executive. Someone realized it was possible to do this, and so they started doing it. Occasionally they bust a pedophile, so its arguably effective.

Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
In short, why is the government doing this? What do they have to gain from this?

Rhetorical, I know, but because they can. Their lawyers think its in their interest to seek the broadest possible authority they can seek and apply it as broadly as they can. This fits with the overall administration policies post 9-11 - maximize the executive. Someone realized it was possible to do this, and so they started doing it. Occasionally they bust a pedophile, so its arguably effective.

I'm skeptical. Most of the post 9-11 reaction was driven by showmanship, not actual effectiveness. I suspect there's a financial motive here. Are people trying to smuggle data via netwalking? Have the series of tubes gotten so well monitored that they are ineffective for transport? That seems unlikely.

flynn23 wrote:
I'm skeptical. Most of the post 9-11 reaction was driven by showmanship, not actual effectiveness. I suspect there's a financial motive here. Are people trying to smuggle data via netwalking? Have the series of tubes gotten so well monitored that they are ineffective for transport? That seems unlikely.

People smuggle information on the Internet. Its convenient and it can be encrypted. Ironically, if its on the Internet a warrant is required to read it.

I think this is the product of a more complicated process than a direct decision by a single person with a particular motive. Its a slow, evolutionary process that involves multiple people who have different motives.

In the late 1970's and early 1980's they got the right to do random searches in the context of the drug war (They argue that they always had that right. I don't think the historical evidence necessarily establishes that.) So they search a lot of luggage, and they do it at random. At one time they said that they search 1 to 2 percent, which is 3 to 6 people off of every inbound flight.

They occasionally read documents when doing these searches... Sometimes its an effective end run around a warrant requirement if they know their suspect is guilty but they can't establish how they know.

The earlier cases involving pedophiles were all situations where they knew who the individual was, and searched their laptops, but at some point they clearly decided to start doing it at random. Thats not much of a leap for them. Eventually they came up with this Arnold guy.

So now, its not just a policy of random searches. Its an effective tool to locate child molesters. Its become a much more difficult thing to oppose. Think of the children...

I think that if we didn't have the 4th amendment there is no way we could get it today. The people wouldn't have it. No one understands what it's purpose is, but everyone understands getting a pedophile off of the street. The only reason people believe the 4th amendment is important is because they were socialized to support the Constitution when they were children.

Decius wrote:
I think that if we didn't have the 4th amendment there is no way we could get it today. The people wouldn't have it. No one understands what it's purpose is, but everyone understands getting a pedophile off of the street. The only reason people believe the 4th amendment is important is because they were socialized to support the Constitution when they were children.

This idea sprung up in our conversation about the 2nd amendment and it's one that I've been thinking about tangentially for a bit. Even though the US is relatively young as a society and a system of government, what if it's grown too old and rigid for modern times?

Certainly, there is a mechanism by which to constantly adapt the fabric of rule and law, but I gotta think that the founding fathers couldn't have anticipated a world that runs at our clock speed today. The system of checks and balances has grown too slow (perhaps?) to accommodate the needs of our society, and I think that's one of the reasons why it's been circumvented by the Executive branch the last decade or so. That and the propensity of government to be run like a business, which I think isn't flawed in spirit, but is soooo missing the point.

I think these two things are tied together somehow. You say that you don't think our society would want the 4th amendment if they were voting for it now. I don't know if I agree with that. It's very American to view 'property' as one if its God given rights. I do agree that people don't really understand why those amendments are there. What they are really trying to do.

I also agree that I think this notion of the State being a panopticon is coming. Look at the UK. Despite our system being built on 'freedom and liberty', those values are falling way behind to 'security'. I do not see a way to have both WITHOUT also having educated people, and a vigorous discourse of ideas and critique. This is not our society today. And that's why it's failed. I fear that we'll give way to security, which will just make our laziness that much more acceptable.

flynn23 wrote:
You say that you don't think our society would want the 4th amendment if they were voting for it now. I don't know if I agree with that. It's very American to view 'property' as one if its God given rights.

I think it would be framed as a debate between the pragmatic need to discover terrorists, child molesters, and drug trafficers versus the elite ideals of borderline communist ACLU liberals. Examples would be presented of a large number of drug busts and a handful of kidnapped children being discovered through random police inspections of homes. You'd be told that the police only inspect a small percentage of homes each year, and those inspections are courteous and brief for most people. Right wing commentators would accuse civil libertarians of siding with islamist terrorists or attempting to protect child molesters. In order words, it would look exactly the same as any other modern political debate about civil liberties.

Civil liberties are only advanced in the wake of clear abuses of power targeting clearly innocent people, and only if the abusers are overthrown. The rest of the time, the natural inclination of society is to move against civil liberties. This movement is only constrained by societal memory of past abuses, and only for so long.

Decius wrote:

Customs and Border Patrol at the Department of Homeland Security was just given the green light to search and seize laptops at the border, without probable cause, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They can deny entry to anyone who refuses to give up their laptops and password. This is an affront to our progressive values of privacy and protection from unwarranted search and seizure.

This is the CAP Action Campaign I mentioned during my talk at the Last HOPE. You can use this form to request that Customs perform a privacy impact assessment on the practice.

Wait, deny entry? To a US Citizen? Where are they going to send him?

Jello wrote:

Decius wrote:

Customs and Border Patrol at the Department of Homeland Security was just given the green light to search and seize laptops at the border, without probable cause, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They can deny entry to anyone who refuses to give up their laptops and password. This is an affront to our progressive values of privacy and protection from unwarranted search and seizure.

This is the CAP Action Campaign I mentioned during my talk at the Last HOPE. You can use this form to request that Customs perform a privacy impact assessment on the practice.

Wait, deny entry? To a US Citizen? Where are they going to send him?

The only clear information I've managed to locate about this is that its "hard" to do if you are a U.S. Citizen. Chances are greater that they'll just take your laptop. I don't know the details.