Another paving stone (or two)...
Apr. 23rd, 2008 08:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpThreat Level at the Wired Blog Network reports that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the digital contents of your computers, PDAs, and cell phones are fair game when you're crossing the border. Basically, the court said the "border exception" to the 4th Amendment (the one generally prohibiting unreasonable searches) applies to electronic content as well as traditional physical objects.
Apropos of which, it turns out that authorities may not only search through your data, but may hold onto your hardware for weeks or months, according to the article.
It would appear the court was swayed by the government's argument that the country could not be kept safe, nor could laws be enforced if a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime was required before searching, say, a traveler's laptop. Expect to hear more of this kind of reasoning as time goes on, no matter what the results of the November election. The People In Charge™ appear to increasingly view the 4th Amendment, and pretty much all of its brethren, as obstacles to good government.
In (possibly) related news, another piece at boingboing refers to an article in the Seattle Times, about how the Border Patrol is apparently questioning citizens traveling within the country.
You don't have to be a genius to put two and two together...
Anyway, in making its ruling, the court reversed a lower court's ruling that digital devices were "an extension of our own memory" and therefore, too personal to allow to be searched without cause. They also didn't feel that the concerns of business travelers - who might not be happy to let third parties, no matter who they are, cast their eyes on potentially sensitive company documents - carried much weight.
"Defending" against such a search, in the sense of not losing important information, is not very difficult, barring a concerted effort to restrict the flow of data across national boundaries. How to thwart abuses of such searches, in the sense of, for example, raising a flag for the use of file encryption (which has already been used by prosecutors as an indication of guilt), or for something as innocuous as having erased one's browser cookies and history (just wait), is much more problematic.
Enjoy the ride.
Cheers...
Apropos of which, it turns out that authorities may not only search through your data, but may hold onto your hardware for weeks or months, according to the article.
It would appear the court was swayed by the government's argument that the country could not be kept safe, nor could laws be enforced if a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime was required before searching, say, a traveler's laptop. Expect to hear more of this kind of reasoning as time goes on, no matter what the results of the November election. The People In Charge™ appear to increasingly view the 4th Amendment, and pretty much all of its brethren, as obstacles to good government.
In (possibly) related news, another piece at boingboing refers to an article in the Seattle Times, about how the Border Patrol is apparently questioning citizens traveling within the country.
You don't have to be a genius to put two and two together...
Anyway, in making its ruling, the court reversed a lower court's ruling that digital devices were "an extension of our own memory" and therefore, too personal to allow to be searched without cause. They also didn't feel that the concerns of business travelers - who might not be happy to let third parties, no matter who they are, cast their eyes on potentially sensitive company documents - carried much weight.
"Defending" against such a search, in the sense of not losing important information, is not very difficult, barring a concerted effort to restrict the flow of data across national boundaries. How to thwart abuses of such searches, in the sense of, for example, raising a flag for the use of file encryption (which has already been used by prosecutors as an indication of guilt), or for something as innocuous as having erased one's browser cookies and history (just wait), is much more problematic.
Enjoy the ride.
Cheers...
