8 ms·

Will this stop the next Border Patrol person from grabbing a laptop? Most definitely not. They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the

Will this stop the next Border Patrol person from grabbing a laptop? Most definitely not. They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the courts. This isn't new, by the way; I remember going back all the way to Steve Jackson Games[1] that the government will seize the stuff willy-nilly, and then let you fight it out in the courts. Violations of our basic rights will continue until there is tangible punishment for an LEO for doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._U...

chillingeffect 11y ago
This is some of the best news, with the longest-ranging results that I've heard in a long time. > Most definitely not. It depends how information about this case gets disseminated. The sooner and wider it spreads, the more unacceptable it will be for rogue agents to overstep the law. After all, citizens can now sue for damages accrued while traveling without the laptop.
- LordKano 11y ago
  I still agree with the GP's point. Unless there is some penalty to be paid by the officers for breaking the rules, the abuses will continue. If they start having to pay damages out of their personal assets or getting sent home without pay, they'll get the message. Until that happens, the status quo will continue.
  - infinite8s 11y ago
    They get sent home with pay when they shoot an unarmed person - I doubt anything will happen if they seize a laptop without justification.
- pluma 11y ago
  You may think that, but unless the effect actually travels down the chain of command, nothing will change. Right now, it's probably beneficial or at least harmless for an LEO to seize a laptop without a justification that holds up in court. The same goes for their superior allowing or outright instructing them to do so. And so forth all the way up the chain. There is no direct impact on the LEO who does it from the court decision that it was unjustified. Unless they or their superiors (or someone higher up the chain) are personally held accountable, why should anything change? It's not a problem with individuals. It's a systemic problem and it needs a systemic solution. There have to be disincentives for someone at some level. Damages paid by the state don't cut it (unless those damages add up to a number high enough for someone to get annoyed by them).
aluhut 11y ago
- "Sir could you please let us look in your laptop?" - "No." - "Alright. Please follow Officer Bob over here.", he said pointing to the huge guy who just started putting on a fresh pair of rubber gloves. - "NEXT!" - "Sir could you please let us look in your laptop?"
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
baseballmerpeak 11y ago
I agree. The government is terrible about doing first and then asking the courts for forgiveness, er, permission,
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  I'm dealing with this right now. A cop wrote me a ticket for not having proof of insurance when it isn't a law in my state to carry it. DMV.org even says LEOs have access to a database where they can look up insurance. But now I have to deal with going to court and I imagine I'll still pay a fine.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - athenot 11y ago
    Some states require that you give them "insurance information" which is different than proof of imagination. Basically, they what the key to do the lookup in the DB by policy ID because their tables are not quite joined the right way... :)
  - knd775 11y ago
    Really? In my state (Virginia), officers have to write the number or whatever of the statute that you are breaking when writing a ticket. Is there anything like that in your state?
    - atom-morgan 11y ago
      Nope.
DannyBee 11y ago
Since folks seem confused here: The feds can still grab your laptop at the border, temporarily, and search it, despite the techdirt headline. There are a lot of court decisions that say they can, and none of those have been changed. What happened here is A. he was leaving the country, not entering it. B. they confiscated his laptop for an extended period of time, moved it, searched it, etc. "It is true that Kim’s laptop was seized at the border – in this case, LAX – but it was not even opened, much less searched, there. It was transported approximately 150 miles to San Diego, it was retained for a limited period of time, and eventually, the laptop was returned." They can't do that :)
- mikeash 11y ago
  Your point A confuses me a great deal. In my experience with international flights, there's no border crossing as you leave, you just go through security as usual, sit around in an airport terminal that's usually shared with people taking domestic flights, then get on your plane. With the exception of a few airports with special arrangements, you hit customs after you land. Does LAX have something weird here, or was he literally just sitting in an airport lounge along with people flying to Chicago or Houston or Kansas City and they seized his stuff "at the border" just because he was going to board an international flight? That seems completely mad.
  - ebiggs 11y ago
    At large airports most, if not all, domestic flights are not serviced in the international terminal for the very reason that once you're past security in the international terminal you are going to be subject to customs and border protection if you were to leave that secure area (recall departure and arrival share the same secure space)
    - mikeash 11y ago
      In my experience this is extremely rare. I've flown into a lot of airports internationally over the years (offhand, Dulles, O'Hare, JFK, Paris de Gaulle, London Stansted, Heathrow, Madrid, Beijing, Cancun, Tokyo, maybe one or two more that I'm forgetting) and I don't think I've ever seen a situation like you describe. Madrid might have been like that, I can't quite recall, but the rest definitely weren't. Instead, you get offloaded into a special area that's only for international arrivals, where your only exit is through customs. Usually this is accomplished with a clever arrangement of locking doors, so that the same gate can then be used for boarding passengers without moving the plane. Is LAX different?
Delmania 11y ago
> They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the courts Which is the point, by the way; most LEOs know people would rather pay a fine than deal with court.
joering2 11y ago
Exactly. I don't travel much international, like twice a year, but know dates in advance. I clone my drive and ship image encrypted ahead of my trip. I travel with laptop without hard drive in it. This is of course, inconvenience, but not illegal. Many times they will ask me to "turn it on" to make sure this is not a bomb disguised as a laptop, but you don't need a hard drive to have BIOS flash on your screen.
- paublyrne 11y ago
  That does seem very inconvenient, and unnecessary.
- tajen 11y ago
  Tonight someone invited me to give a talk at his business conference in NYC in front of 80 potential customers. I refused. I don't travel to US: - I have porn on my computer, obviously not underage but what am I supposed to say if the border agent asks me "Is this subject underage?" - I use a false name on Facebook. This is impersonation against an american interest. - I've downloaded torrents. Even if I delete the files, I'm pretty sure there are footprints everywhere. Pretty sure there's jail time for piracy, and being my third offense in this list, I'm pretty sure it could be considered as a repeat offense. There's a reason why we have a right to privacy. It's because everyone has very fluid limits on things that are forbidden, and everyone, including elected officials, breaks them. But not everyone is punished. So I'd rather not cross the US border.

chillingeffect 11y ago

This is some of the best news, with the longest-ranging results that I've heard in a long time. > Most definitely not. It depends how information about this case gets disseminated. The sooner and wider it spreads, the more unacceptable it will be for rogue agents to overstep the law. After all, citizens can now sue for damages accrued while traveling without the laptop.

LordKano 11y ago
I still agree with the GP's point. Unless there is some penalty to be paid by the officers for breaking the rules, the abuses will continue. If they start having to pay damages out of their personal assets or getting sent home without pay, they'll get the message. Until that happens, the status quo will continue.
- infinite8s 11y ago
  They get sent home with pay when they shoot an unarmed person - I doubt anything will happen if they seize a laptop without justification.
pluma 11y ago
You may think that, but unless the effect actually travels down the chain of command, nothing will change. Right now, it's probably beneficial or at least harmless for an LEO to seize a laptop without a justification that holds up in court. The same goes for their superior allowing or outright instructing them to do so. And so forth all the way up the chain. There is no direct impact on the LEO who does it from the court decision that it was unjustified. Unless they or their superiors (or someone higher up the chain) are personally held accountable, why should anything change? It's not a problem with individuals. It's a systemic problem and it needs a systemic solution. There have to be disincentives for someone at some level. Damages paid by the state don't cut it (unless those damages add up to a number high enough for someone to get annoyed by them).

aluhut 11y ago

- "Sir could you please let us look in your laptop?" - "No." - "Alright. Please follow Officer Bob over here.", he said pointing to the huge guy who just started putting on a fresh pair of rubber gloves. - "NEXT!" - "Sir could you please let us look in your laptop?"

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

baseballmerpeak 11y ago

I agree. The government is terrible about doing first and then asking the courts for forgiveness, er, permission,

atom-morgan 11y ago
I'm dealing with this right now. A cop wrote me a ticket for not having proof of insurance when it isn't a law in my state to carry it. DMV.org even says LEOs have access to a database where they can look up insurance. But now I have to deal with going to court and I imagine I'll still pay a fine.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- athenot 11y ago
  Some states require that you give them "insurance information" which is different than proof of imagination. Basically, they what the key to do the lookup in the DB by policy ID because their tables are not quite joined the right way... :)
- knd775 11y ago
  Really? In my state (Virginia), officers have to write the number or whatever of the statute that you are breaking when writing a ticket. Is there anything like that in your state?
  - atom-morgan 11y ago
    Nope.

DannyBee 11y ago

Since folks seem confused here: The feds can still grab your laptop at the border, temporarily, and search it, despite the techdirt headline. There are a lot of court decisions that say they can, and none of those have been changed. What happened here is A. he was leaving the country, not entering it. B. they confiscated his laptop for an extended period of time, moved it, searched it, etc. "It is true that Kim’s laptop was seized at the border – in this case, LAX – but it was not even opened, much less searched, there. It was transported approximately 150 miles to San Diego, it was retained for a limited period of time, and eventually, the laptop was returned." They can't do that :)

mikeash 11y ago
Your point A confuses me a great deal. In my experience with international flights, there's no border crossing as you leave, you just go through security as usual, sit around in an airport terminal that's usually shared with people taking domestic flights, then get on your plane. With the exception of a few airports with special arrangements, you hit customs after you land. Does LAX have something weird here, or was he literally just sitting in an airport lounge along with people flying to Chicago or Houston or Kansas City and they seized his stuff "at the border" just because he was going to board an international flight? That seems completely mad.
- ebiggs 11y ago
  At large airports most, if not all, domestic flights are not serviced in the international terminal for the very reason that once you're past security in the international terminal you are going to be subject to customs and border protection if you were to leave that secure area (recall departure and arrival share the same secure space)
  - mikeash 11y ago
    In my experience this is extremely rare. I've flown into a lot of airports internationally over the years (offhand, Dulles, O'Hare, JFK, Paris de Gaulle, London Stansted, Heathrow, Madrid, Beijing, Cancun, Tokyo, maybe one or two more that I'm forgetting) and I don't think I've ever seen a situation like you describe. Madrid might have been like that, I can't quite recall, but the rest definitely weren't. Instead, you get offloaded into a special area that's only for international arrivals, where your only exit is through customs. Usually this is accomplished with a clever arrangement of locking doors, so that the same gate can then be used for boarding passengers without moving the plane. Is LAX different?

Delmania 11y ago

> They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the courts Which is the point, by the way; most LEOs know people would rather pay a fine than deal with court.

joering2 11y ago

Exactly. I don't travel much international, like twice a year, but know dates in advance. I clone my drive and ship image encrypted ahead of my trip. I travel with laptop without hard drive in it. This is of course, inconvenience, but not illegal. Many times they will ask me to "turn it on" to make sure this is not a bomb disguised as a laptop, but you don't need a hard drive to have BIOS flash on your screen.

paublyrne 11y ago
That does seem very inconvenient, and unnecessary.
tajen 11y ago
Tonight someone invited me to give a talk at his business conference in NYC in front of 80 potential customers. I refused. I don't travel to US: - I have porn on my computer, obviously not underage but what am I supposed to say if the border agent asks me "Is this subject underage?" - I use a false name on Facebook. This is impersonation against an american interest. - I've downloaded torrents. Even if I delete the files, I'm pretty sure there are footprints everywhere. Pretty sure there's jail time for piracy, and being my third offense in this list, I'm pretty sure it could be considered as a repeat offense. There's a reason why we have a right to privacy. It's because everyone has very fluid limits on things that are forbidden, and everyone, including elected officials, breaks them. But not everyone is punished. So I'd rather not cross the US border.