ACLU Sues Over Laptop Searches At The Border

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The American Civil Liberties Union is taking on the Department of Homeland Security's policy of allowing guards to search your laptop at the border for no reason.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) today filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy permitting border agents to search, copy and detain travelers' electronic devices at the border without reasonable suspicion. DHS asserts the right to look though the contents of a traveler's electronic devices – including laptops, cameras and cell phones – and to keep the devices or copy the contents in order to continue searching them once the traveler has been allowed to enter the U.S., regardless of whether the traveler is suspected of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
 
Just cross the border with 2 girls 1 cup under various suspicious sounding file names on your laptop.
 
I have to agree with them on this. Especially after reading that story a few months ago where they went and did a search of some guy's house without getting a warrant or anything calling it an 'extended border search' because he'd crossed the border more than a few months before.

Searching people without cause or suspicion is one thing even non ACLU fans can agree might be pushing things too far. Just imagine if other countries did this, copied all the data on your notebook as you pass through for them to later examine (and if it's encrypted claim the legal right to demand you give over the encryption key) - our companies and government would probably be the very first ones saying 'You're trying to steal our corporate trade secrets!' and putting out travel advisories about it.
 
They also claim the right to search your electronics before you leave the country. My cousin was detained for 3 hours when he went through security trying to go to Canada. He works with film studios and had encrypted sections on his laptop. They demanded that he decrypt everything. He refused so they kept him waiting another two hours. Missed his flight, got no refund, had to buy another ticket. All with no reason, just that he was selected for a heightened security check.
 
Yeah, if I was traveling through the airport for nefarious reasons my laptop would be clean as a whistle. Once I get through, then I can download my all important programs of evil from the terrorist overlord's server overseas.
 
I think the legal basis for this claim is that when you cross into a security checkpoint (Customs) you are neither here nor there in terms of which country you are in. So US rights and laws do not apply as you have not been granted entry into the united states yet.

I think it's complete and total BS. A freeby loophole to allow them to take whatever they want.

Ever since this announcement, my old employer ordered everyone to wipe very sensitive data from the hard drives before leaving and entering the country, then to use 128 encryption vpn's to retrieve it again. But it's a pain in the tail when you are talking hundreds of megs of data in a foreign country where the connection might not be so good.

But when you are dealing with a customers data that may make or break them as a company, you have to do it to protect them.
 
Parmenides said:
Yeah, if I was traveling through the airport for nefarious reasons my laptop would be clean as a whistle. Once I get through, then I can download my all important programs of evil from the terrorist overlord's server overseas.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but remember, security is an industry. They are simply creating work for themselves where none really exists. Nevermind the fact that a guy from the short bus could figure out how to work around this, the security people need their paychecks.
 
It is so very sad that the ACLU even needs to do this. Americans should not require protection from our own government regardless of the geological location they might inhabit.

As Americans if we truly believe in our rights and constitution then we have to offer those same rights to anyone on, entering, or leaving our soil. To say any one group has rights and another doesn't is to agree that any person, party, or government can and should have the same ability to pick and choose by arbitrary criteria who does and doesn't have rights and protection under the law.

IMO anyways
 
Elf_Boy said:
It is so very sad that the ACLU even needs to do this. Americans should not require protection from our own government regardless of the geological location they might inhabit.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the fact that the ACLU has to be the watchdog so to speak and that genpub isn't raising a stick is unbelievable to me. The worst part though that people in genpub say things like, "well if you're not doing anything illegal or wrong you don't have to worry." BULL**** I say, who is watching the watchdogs? How are we protected? How is our data protected? Whether business related, as pointed out by numerous people in this thread, or otherwise.
 
As long as the ACLU also applies their efforts to those Americans that are historically not covered by their efforts, then I'm fine with it.
 
This must be a mistake, the ACLU is never on the right side of an issue :)

I'm sure they just want to make sure people can bring thier p0rn collection across the border without being hasled.
 
After fighting against religion and defending illegal immigrants against US citizens, the ACLU has to try to balance themselves up by picking causes that those on the right might find favorable. They once defended Rush Limbaugh.
 
If real justice were to be done, not only would this policy be declared unconstitutional, but everyone involved in creating it should go to jail, and should not be allowed to have a government job ever again once they are released.
 
DragonMantis said:
I'm normally not an ACLU fan. And I agree with them on this one.
Click to expand...

See this one blows me away. EVERYONE should be on the side of the ACLU. This reminds me of the whole Daily Show episode where Jon quoted Martin Niemoller, "First they came..." Whether you agree with a stance or not, the undeniable fact is that our civil liberties, whatever sub-set you belong to, are being assaulted. I don't agree with all of the fights that the ACLU picks but I sure as heck believe that all of our civil liberties are better off when someone else's civil liberties are being fought for.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
See this one blows me away. EVERYONE should be on the side of the ACLU. This reminds me of the whole Daily Show episode where Jon quoted Martin Niemoller, "First they came..." Whether you agree with a stance or not, the undeniable fact is that our civil liberties, whatever sub-set you belong to, are being assaulted. I don't agree with all of the fights that the ACLU picks but I sure as heck believe that all of our civil liberties are better off when someone else's civil liberties are being fought for.
Click to expand...

Well, the ACLU != Civil Liberty. In many cases they actually do take away civil liberties.
 
Parmenides said:
Well, the ACLU != Civil Liberty. In many cases they actually do take away civil liberties.
Click to expand...

Didn't say they were :p What I did say, is that when people's civil liberties are being defended it's a better place for us all. ACLU's stance for example on the 2nd Ammendment is something I completely disagree with and it stands to get in the way of my rights but I have other organizations that stand up for those rights for me. However, on an issue like this who is looking out for us?
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Didn't say they were :p What I did say, is that when people's civil liberties are being defended it's a better place for us all. ACLU's stance for example on the 2nd Ammendment is something I completely disagree with and it stands to get in the way of my rights but I have other organizations that stand up for those rights for me. However, on an issue like this who is looking out for us?
Click to expand...

These are the somewhat rare issues.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
if your favorite past time is yelling racial epithets at minorities from the window of a speeding car then yea, I guess they do. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As if they are the engine behind increasing mutual interracial understanding that has grown in this country. No, they are not the champions of racial progress.
 
So, out of curiosity, what issues has the ACLU supported that you do not agree with. I'm not asking for an exhaustive list.. just a few good examples.
 
pevo said:
So, out of curiosity, what issues has the ACLU supported that you do not agree with. I'm not asking for an exhaustive list.. just a few good examples.
Click to expand...

NAMBLA.</end of discussion>
 
DigitalGriffin said:
NAMBLA.</end of discussion>
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA

The ACLU made it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives. "We've never taken a position that sexual-consent laws are beyond the state's power to legislate," John Reinstein, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 1997. "I've never been able to fathom their position." (Boston Globe, October 9, 1997)
Click to expand...

Personally I think it was questionable, but the ACLU took the position they were defending the associations first amendment right to exist. Unpopular speech or organizations are sometimes the ones in most need of protecting. Obviously not in that case, but if they couldn't defend one terrible group of people on constitutional grounds then it would be hypocritical to do so when a group that actually should exist is being attacked.
 
Yeah, don't confuse defending free speech with defending child abuse.
 
pevo said:
Yeah, don't confuse defending free speech with defending child abuse.
Click to expand...

No kidding. When you see a headline stating "ACLU DEFENDS child porn peddler!" Be sure to read between the line.
 
Tokamak said:
No kidding. When you see a headline stating "ACLU DEFENDS child porn peddler!" Be sure to read between the line.
Click to expand...

Defending someone's right to buy pot doesn't mean they are going to smoke it right?

It is an inevitable side effect of the action. But defending them, they are defending against the potential acts of abuse. You can not seperate one from the other.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Defending someone's right to buy pot doesn't mean they are going to smoke it right?

It is an inevitable side effect of the action. But defending them, they are defending against the potential acts of abuse. You can not seperate one from the other.
Click to expand...

Sorry I typod and I can't edit my post. What I meant to say is, "By defending them you are in essence allowing potential acts of abuse. To claim otherwise is just being blind to the end effect"

A lawyer has to go by his concious in representing their client. Obviously they have none in persuit of the pure letter of the law.

This from a libratarian.
 
You have a very narrow view of justice imo. To only grant rights to people who you agree with is to grant no rights at all. Look into the case; they were not fighting against physical evidence a crime took place, they were only defending the right to speech.

"Under the First Amendment, there are no illegal ideas. Those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct, but the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by our Constitution" was their stated position.

Do you believe that the mere expressing of offensive ideas should be a crime? The ACLU does not, and that is all they were defending. At no point were they defending actual abuse.

And to the guy who suggested that article titles are accurate portrayals of truth: Are you kidding? Headlines constantly state things in the most inflammatory way to get people to read the article. You should absolutely get the facts before making a decision.

I wonder if you are the same people who condemned the defense lawyers of suspected terrorists. As if supporting a legal system, a means where rights are upheld despite popular dislike, is somehow immoral if it gets in the way of your preferred vigilante justice.

Or how about the KKK or Westbro Baptist church? They are total assholes, but they have a legal right to speech. If you don't like it, change the law, get an amendment to pass. But to attack the ACLU for defending their rights, and *yours*, is just hate filled misguided ignorance.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Sorry I typod and I can't edit my post. What I meant to say is, "By defending them you are in essence allowing potential acts of abuse. To claim otherwise is just being blind to the end effect"

A lawyer has to go by his concious in representing their client. Obviously they have none in persuit of the pure letter of the law.

This from a libratarian.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong way to look at it. A good example is the Qur'an burning preacher. Every intelligent American defends his basic right to do it, but we do so knowing that his actions are completely despicable, and strongly appose what he is doing.
 
So everyone should have the right tell some guy to go out and *$#@ boys?

Should I have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

If it sticks the general public at risk for harm, then NO YOU DO NOT. There are limits to free speech.
 
This is what lawyers call "In prohibta malsa"

Meaining: This is prohibited because is malisive against other people.

This is different from "victimless" crimes "In prohibta inse" (ie: smoking pot)

Meaning: This is prohibted because I said so because it is bad for you.
 
I wonder if burning a bible or an American flag is completely despicable too. Anyways, that bozo pastor's actions are inflammatory. He needs to think about the consequences of his actions. Burning bibles on the other hand has no consequences.

Anyways, there is a limit to free speech. Death threats, slander/libel, etc... are no go's. Child porn on the internet is a no go with our current laws.

The line is very fine and it's easy to slip too far one way or another. But there is a line nevertheless. In Canada, if you preach certain verses of the bible, you get in trouble for "hate speech", even if you aren't speaking against an individual person, but stating a moral position.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
There are limits to free speech.
Click to expand...

Methinks we need to talk about what "free" means...

Anyway, this article has nothing to do with NAMBLA, it is about the constitutionality of laptop border searches without needing probable cause, which most of us can agree on.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Methinks we need to talk about what "free" means...

Anyway, this article has nothing to do with NAMBLA, it is about the constitutionality of laptop border searches without needing probable cause, which most of us can agree on.
Click to expand...

forgot to add "is wrong" at the end there.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
forgot to add "is wrong" at the end there.
Click to expand...

Right you are. We did divert off the topic.

Now the question remains:

The US claims you are not on US property at a border check, then you have no rights to privacy granted to you under the constitution.

So would it be reasonable to assume that if a border check did reveal something illegal, then you couldn't get prosecuted for breaking US laws, because again you aren't on US property? But as soon as you step through those gates....
 
DigitalGriffin said:
So everyone should have the right tell some guy to go out and *$#@ boys?

Should I have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

If it sticks the general public at risk for harm, then NO YOU DO NOT. There are limits to free speech.
Click to expand...

Totally different. A movie theather is privately owned. You do not have the free speech right to talk loud regardless of whatever it is you want to say. Try it even with the most harmless of topic and watch yourself get kicked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top