DHS Watchdog OKs Suspicionless Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border [quote="Wired"] The Department of Homeland Securitys civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nations borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever all in the name of national security. The DHS, which secures the nations border, in 2009 announced that it would conduct a Civil Liberties Impact Assessment of its suspicionless search-and-seizure policy pertaining to electronic devices within 120 days. More than three years later, the DHS office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties published a two-page executive summary of its findings. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits, the executive summary said. The memo highlights the friction between todays reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects juxtaposed against the governments stated quest for national security. The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nations actual border. Civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union suggest that reasonable suspicion should be the rule, at a minimum, despite that being a lower standard than required by the Fourth Amendment. There should be a reasonable, articulate reason why the search of our electronic devices could lead to evidence of a crime, Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney, said in a telephone interview. Thats a low threshold. The DHS watchdogs conclusion isnt surprising, as the DHS is taking that position in litigation in which the ACLU is challenging the suspicionless, electronic-device searches and seizures along the nations borders. But that conclusion nevertheless is alarming considering it came from the DHS civil rights watchdog, which maintains its mission is promoting respect for civil rights and civil liberties. This is a civil liberties watchdog office. If it is doing its job property, it is supposed to objectively evaluate. It has the power to recommend safeguards to safeguard Americans rights, Crump said. The office has not done that and the public has the right to know why. Toward that goal, the ACLU on Friday filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to see the full report that the executive summary discusses. Meantime, a lawsuit the ACLU brought on the issue concerns a New York man whose laptop was seized along the Canadian border in 2010 and returned 11 days later after his attorney complained. At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password, according to the lawsuit. Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained that he was earning a doctoral degree at a Canadian university on the topic of the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon. He was handcuffed and then jailed for three hours while the authorities looked through his computer while numerous agents questioned him, according to the suit, which is pending in New York federal court. Good thing this 4th amendment free zone of US only encompasses a small part of the country, right? Wrong.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]How the f*ck was the 100 miles thing even convinced? Christ alive.22Toothpicks
100 miles or 100 inches it makes no difference given any unreasonable search and seizure is in violation of the 4th Amendment. Fvck that.Yeah that I certainly have to agree with. It's disgusting.
So the entire states of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Florida, and Hawaii are part of the border.
I don't think that map is entirely accurate though. Lake Michigan is completely within the border of the United States, so I'm not sure thouse areas on its shoreline would be included under the premise presented in the article.
[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"][QUOTE="thegerg"]Civilians don't need private communications anyway, though cellphone nuts may disagree. thegerg
WTF are you talking about? You cannot possibly believe that... Of course I believe it, but I don't think that means that we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to such communication. It's simply that OT seems to measure what is reasonable for civilians to have based on what they need. Well, this isn't about what we "need" to have. Fact of the matter is that, today, people's entire lives are stored on laptops, iPads and the like. Point of this is the unlawful searching on those devices. Has nothing to do what with is necessary, but the anti fourth amendment seizure of these devices (and like I said, far more importantly, its contents).
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama needs to be impeached.Laihendi
Laihendi is a moron who still doesn't understand what that term means.
Obama is a traitor. He should be charged with treason and impeached.
In none of the threads you've posted, in none of the posts you've made, have you made a compelling argument of why this President is a traitor, above any other President who have been very similar in action and ideaology.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Of course I believe it, but I don't think that means that we don't (or shouldn't) have the right to such communication. It's simply that OT seems to measure what is reasonable for civilians to have based on what they need. Well, this isn't about what we "need" to have. Fact of the matter is that, today, people's entire lives are stored on laptops, iPads and the like. Point of this is the unlawful searching on those devices. Has nothing to do what with is necessary, but the anti fourth amendment seizure of these devices (and like I said, far more importantly, its contents). " this isn't about what we "need" to have." I fully agree that our rights are not (and shouldn't be) determined simply by what we need. We do "need" a laptop. But when we buy one, legally I might add, and store our personal information on it, then under your fourth amendment it should not be searched through without a legitimate cause. Not sure what about that is hard to understand.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama needs to be impeached.Laihendi
Laihendi is a moron who still doesn't understand what that term means.
Obama is a traitor. He should be charged with treason and impeached. Aaaaand adding "treason" to the list of things Laihendi is clueless on in regards to American law.
Laihendi is a moron who still doesn't understand what that term means.
jimkabrhel
Obama is a traitor. He should be charged with treason and impeached.
In none of the threads you've posted, in none of the posts you've made, have you made a compelling argument of why this President is a traitor, above any other President who have been very similar in action and ideaology.
Obama is a traitor for subverting the constitution he swore to uphold. When he betrays the rights of the people he was elected to serve, he betrays the country. Obama thinks he is above the law but he is not.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Obama is a traitor. He should be charged with treason and impeached.Laihendi
In none of the threads you've posted, in none of the posts you've made, have you made a compelling argument of why this President is a traitor, above any other President who have been very similar in action and ideaology.
Obama is a traitor for subverting the constitution he swore to uphold. When he betrays the rights of the people he was elected to serve, he betrays the country. Obama thinks he is above the law but he is not.That isn't how the Constitution defines treason. Try again.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] " this isn't about what we "need" to have." I fully agree that our rights are not (and shouldn't be) determined simply by what we need. We do "need" a laptop. But when we buy one, legally I might add, and store our personal information on it, then under your fourth amendment it should not be searched through without a legitimate cause. Not sure what about that is hard to understand. No, we don't need a laptop. It makes life easier for many people, but many more live without them. You seem to be confused. My bad, that "do" should've been "don't", as should have clear from the rest of the post but I know why you focused on that typo.
[QUOTE="thegerg"]Civilians don't need private communications anyway, though cellphone nuts may disagree. 22Toothpicks
Â
Excuse me?
It's thegerg dude...fvcking moron if I've ever seen one (unless he's just a troll which is very likely) He's parodying people who support gun control. I don't see why that's difficult to understand.
Log in to comment