Bill would limit Homeland Security laptop searches
The Homeland Security Department has declared its right to seize laptops at the U.S. border indefinitely, but legislation introduced Thursday is intended to curb that power.
U.S. Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.), introduced the Travelers Privacy Protection Act in response to the DHS policy allowing customs agents to detain a traveler's laptop for an unspecified period of time to review its contents, even absent of individualized suspicion.
"Most Americans would be shocked to learn that upon their return to the U.S. from traveling abroad, the government could demand the password to their laptop, hold it for as long as it wants, pore over their documents, e-mails, and photographs, and examine which Web sites they visited--all without any suggestion of wrongdoing," Feingold said. "Focusing our limited law enforcement resources on law-abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion does not make us any safer and is a gross violation of privacy."
The legislation would require DHS to form reasonable suspicion of illegal activity before searching electronic devices carried by U.S. residents. The DHS would also be required to provide probable cause and a warrant or court order to hold such a device for more than 24 hours. The bill also limits what information acquired through electronic searches the DHS can disclose, and it requires the department to report on its border searches to Congress.
The DHS refused to send a witness to a Senate hearing in June, chaired by Feingold, regarding searches of electronic devices, but it provided a written statement defending its policy. A ruling in April by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also defended the agency's right to conduct the searches without reasonable suspicion.
Similar bills, such as the Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act and the Border Security Search Accountability Act, have been introduced this year in the House.
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie.
If this bill only protects US citizens returning to this country it does not go far enough. As the defender of freedom worldwide, we must be the shining example of freedom. Simply saying we are defending freedom is not enough. We must also act in defense of freedom. That means defending against DHS and any other government or non-government agency that would seek to reduce our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism.
When we give up our freedoms to defend against terrorists, the terrorists have already won the battle.
No, just their Republican bosses.
And Facebook just hired one of them - one of the most shrewd of them - as its general counsel.
Be afraid for your data, folks.
If you value the constitution, then maybe it's best you study it. Read up on the Fourth Amendment and why the so called "Border Search Exception" is not only reasonable, but necessary to protect the country's sovereignty.
There isn't even any reason to steal components of missile systems, etc. anymore. Just get the schematics, do the above, send them to China, Russia, Iran..... BOOM! We have a severe problem on our hands.
Let them try. I forsee alot of 'missing' federal agents.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Persons, houses, papers, and effects means your laptop and your data.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Persons, houses, papers, and effects means your laptop and your data.
The problem with the DHS seizing laptops and keeping them is they do so while violating all public standards of what is reasonable. No government should be allowed to seize property without notice. Probably cause must be shown before any seizure of property can take place and that probably cause must me able to hold up under scrutiny.
Otherwise we're left with someone's "gut feeling", and scientifically speaking, gut feelings are unreliable. Do any of you want your property taken from you on a "gut feeling"?
What another wonderfully crap and pointless new idea by the department of homeland stupidity.
America.......America.....GOD shed his grace on Thee.
CONGRESS has the power, NOT the president. VOTE (WIPE) THEM OUT, ALL OF THEM.
I agree with the first post: when we sacrifice our individual freedoms, the terrorists have won.
Our individual liberty, our right to speak freely and openly without reprisal, our right to disagree with our government, our privacy - these are the things that make America a great place. When we are ruled by fear instead of reason, and disagreement with our current government's policies becomes 'unpatriotic' or 'anti-American', we've lost sight of who we are. To reduce discussion of current topics to some kind of ideological battle of the righteous conservatives vs. the godless liberals - or however you want to divide it up and label it - oversimplifies the very real challenges we face right now and reduces the dialogue to finger-pointing and name-calling. We can all do better.
Mattumanu you are quite wrong.
The Constitution does not "give" citizens rights. Constitutional rights are negative rights (look that up.) The Constitution "protects" the rights you already had against government abuse. If we believe rights are negative rights, and they do not come from a government of any kind, than all people of all nations have exactly the same rights you do.. regardless if the country they are in currently infringes upon that right. To that end the Constitution also says it applies to "people" not "citizens".
You can believe otherwise if you like... but you would not be believing in the Lockean theory of rights that the Constitution is based on. (And if you don't agree with that.. The Declaration of Independence itself contains word for word reference to the work of John Locke himself.)
And, your argument is logically flawed regarding freedom. You cannot logically have freedom TO and freedom FROM at the same time. They are diametrically oppsed concepts. But I guess you were so angry that someone used the term "liberal' that it upset you (therefore you are very likely to be a liberal) just had to open mouth, inssert foot with illogical non-sense.
Enjoy your 'freedom FROM' while you still think you have it.