U.S. agents can seize travelers' laptops: report

[doios]

Be careful when coming into the US from abroad.

Original URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN0126069520080801?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews
U.S. agents can seize travelers' laptops: report
Fri Aug 1, 2008 8:13am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. federal agents have been given new powers to seize travelers' laptops and other electronic devices at the border and hold them for unspecified periods the Washington Post reported on Friday.
Under recently disclosed Department of Homeland Security policies, such seizures may be carried out without suspicion of wrongdoing, the newspaper said, quoting policies issued on July 16 by two DHS agencies.
Agents are empowered to share the contents of seized computers with other agencies and private entities for data decryption and other reasons, the newspaper said.
DHS officials said the policies applied to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens, and were needed to prevent terrorism.
The measures have long been in place but were only disclosed in July, under pressure from civil liberties and business travel groups acting on reports that increasing numbers of international travelers had had their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices removed and examined.
The policies cover hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes -- as well as books, pamphlets and other written materials, the report said.
The policies require federal agents to take measures to protect business information and attorney-client privileged material. They stipulate that any copies of the data must be destroyed when a review is completed and no probable cause exists to keep the information.

[Oisin]

Welcome to the free world.

[rspyder]

Welcome to the Bush world...its not free:D

[Oisin]

Welcome to the Bush world...its not free:D

When Bush took office gas was $1.48 a gallon, unemployment was low, housing values were stable, and the national deficit.... OH! well I'll stop there.

Ironically at that time rogue nations were said to be: spying on their own people, using torture, performing unreasonable search and seizure, suspending civil liberties and jailing individuals before being charged. It sure is a strange world.

Now we have two sides of the same coin running for President. Undoubtedly they will continue the precedent set by the last 8 years. I never thought this great country which I love with all my heart would tolerate the single party system of theocratic rule which we have evolved into.

[JCabranes]

Anyone else see a lawsuit comming?

[Bobnoxous]

Suing the government is pretty unsatisfactory. They have unlimited funds (our money) to use against us.

It's just sad how crooked these agencies get. They can take your stuff without any suspicion whatsoever. Of course they'll only do it for a good reason. You can trust them. Never heard of any government agent retaliating for not showing the proper obedience to their presumed authority.

[Bobnoxous]

Anyone else see a lawsuit comming?BTW, this is the result of the SCOTUS saying the government could inspect your computers coming into the country without any cause or suspicion. It was needed to protect against terrorism. A lawsuit wouldn't do any good. It's already been decided. Feel free yet?

So what about all that stuff running in those internet tubes? Is that monitored too? Can they break the encryption? We may never know.

[Morley]

Suing the government is pretty unsatisfactory. They have unlimited funds (our money) to use against us.

It's just sad how crooked these agencies get. They can take your stuff without any suspicion whatsoever. Of course they'll only do it for a good reason. You can trust them. Never heard of any government agent retaliating for not showing the proper obedience to their presumed authority.
Where have you been? Police have been doing this for years and no one griped then.

[doios]

Given our limited privacy rights, I have great concern about how the scope of our Fourth Amendment privacy rights seem to be contracting further with the advent of new technology that permits others to peer into our homes and offices, listen to our conversations, or read our correspondence. Our increasing dependence on technology has certainly made our hectic lives more convenient – but it has also made our behavior and communications more susceptible to oversight.
Recently there have been numerous legal decisions that have focused on new technology, and, in particular, the privacy rights granted to individuals using it. We are all aware that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we have a telephone conversion using a wired telephone, but recently legal decisions have narrowed these rights. For example, one no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy when conducting cordless telephone conversations, nor do they have privacy from electronically-enhanced telephoto lenses. There are also limited privacy rights when you are chatting with another using an instant messaging product. Moreover, the U.S. Patriot Act allows government the ability to more easily intercept certain electronic communications. The scope of our privacy rights in the use of new technology is currently being narrowed by the courts and by Congress. Since our legal protections against unreasonable search and seizure are partly dependent on our expectations of privacy, judicial and Congressional narrowing of our rights will undoubtedly lead to even narrower individual expectations of privacy.
The other significant misconception is that privacy laws and privacy policies are economically stifling and disadvantageous. I think several developments suggest otherwise. First, citizens of Canada and European countries have much greater protection of their personal information than Americans.

[Bobnoxous]

Where have you been? Police have been doing this for years and no one griped then.Many people, including myself, have repeatedly stated that asset forfeiture is a criminal act with no place in a country that claims to have due process. We're just a minority that no one hears.