Posted on 01/07/2008 6:56:46 AM PST by rawhide
A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called “Kodak pictures” and “Kodak memories,” the officer found child pornography.
The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer’s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase.
One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit.
There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold.
“Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,” Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. “They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.”
Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and — the clincher, of course — information about reporters’ “confidential sources and story leads.”
But Judge Pregerson’s decision seems to be headed for reversal. The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search.
{snip}
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Now we know the real motivation ferom the NYT to hand-wring over this. It isn't Civil Liberties, it their business model that they think will be affected.
Or am I missing something?
Interesting notion...storage device as extension of personal memory. That’s probably very true, for the most part. Planners, calendars, address books, the great American Novel, plans for nuclear bombs, poems to the mistress, etc.
I don’t believe the appeals courts will agree, though. Far too many activist judges eager to legislate from the bench.
Encrypted, I’d suggest. Regardless of the content.
Care to elaborate?
Correct me if I am wrong, but, is it not illegal to possess this material in any form?
I’m not up on all the latest child porn handle dos and donts, but I would be more paranoid of sending it around public internet lines and e-mail servers, then holding it on a hard or thumb drive. In two weeks you could delete the info, but once its in a mail server it exists forever, with your name attached.
Merely that with no file in the computer in question, (other than a forensic search) how would some airport security person see the file?
Deleted files are still on your computer.
Is it illegal to have a folder of information that has your credit card numbers, social security numbers, account passwords for online stores, etc.?
What the federal courts have said is that anyone who is under the government umbrella has the authority to look at your private computer files without a warrant or suspicion.
Just because something good (catching a peddler in child porn) happened because of a bad and dangerous law, doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad and dangerous law.
See my post #9?
My laptop IS my home PC. It's the only computer I have.
I disagree with Judge Pregerson strongly.
A memory of pornographic material can be desired or undesired. For example, a victim of child porn may have the memory, but doesn’t want to have it. Or someone could have accidentally viewed it and was subsequently repulsed.
Keeping pornographic material on a hard drive demonstrates a desire to view it repeatedly. IOW, its being used to reinforce a memory. Its not the memory itself.
That helps. Thanks
Not necessarily, but if this guy's dumb enough to leave kiddie porn essentially in plain view, he's not smart enough to use the software that will permanently delete the files (unless somebody REALLY wants your data and is willing to splurge for an electron microscope).
Anyway, I can't figure out what the judge is smoking. Warrantless inspections at point of entry were allowed by the Founders, so they're certainly not unconstitutional now. If you have any confidential information, there are a myriad of ways to hide it from the cursory customs inspection.
That is the main point, do we are do we not have a 4th amendment.
Put everything personal on flash drives and carry them in your wallet.
Pregerson's the activist here who is trying to create new law, not the appellate judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.