Aehurst, I think you're missing the real point. the constitutional protections were not written merely to save us from the embarrassment of having someone poke through our stuff. they were written because the people who wrote the constitution had a profound distrust about the good intentions of government (*any* government - this isn't a repub/dem/conserv/lib issue). for example, I have a conference in Paris I could go to, and there are some things I have written on my laptop that are critical of US policy. this kind of invasive search opens the possibility that the government could see those writings and block my exit from the country. they could possibly even block future publication. this kind of thing used to happen in the Soviet Union all the time, and there have been more than a few cases of American academics being restricted from travel or censored on particular works.

now, of course, your response to this is going to be something like "well, that's not very likely in this country, is it?" and I'd agree with you. but you are basing that statement on nothing more than a faith that the government's intentions are universally good. the founding fathers and I are not that trusting, at least not in the long run.

don't get me wrong - I have faith in the goodness of human nature, and so I'm often somewhat lax about security. but then again, if I get robbed I'm the only one who loses. if the government decides to steal our rights, we all lose.

Meanwhile in Norway...
 

.
Norwegian Air is in the news today. And the reason?

They are refusing to provide police authorities with passenger lists as a matter of routine. Instead, they are quoting the law, and saying that passenger lists will be provided only in those instances where they are presented a Court Order, or a Formal Request from the police.

In fact they are going further -- Norwegian Air points out that it is actually illegal for them to acquiesce to anything less than this. That hasn’t stopped SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) from turning over passenger lists in a routine fashion for years.

Interestingly, the intransigence of Norwegian Air is being applauded by the Norwegian Data Inspectorate. Let me quote Senior Consultant Guro Slettemark:

"The law is clear. The police must show a warrant or court order. This demand is important for both passengers and airlines. I firmly believe that Norwegian’s reaction shows good judgment."

Any US or other European airlines wish to follow suit? :cool:


-- ArcticStones


PS. Good point, TW. It is a question of judgment.
I have yet to see any official reason (let alone a good one) for allowing universal search of laptop harddisks and seizure of data. If anyone knows of a stated motive, please post it.

The problem with Homeland Security seems to be that it doesn't matter what the law or the Constitution says -- in the name of their mission they seem to be immune.

Oh, no. Not another critic.

I guess I am not making myself very clear.... I think this all sucks industrial pond water, too. I think searching laptops is unnecessary.

That said, the US law as it stands today is they can search your laptop at international points of entry. That is a fact, not an opinion. I am hopeful this case eventually makes it to the Supreme Court and they will reverse 100+ years of legal precedent and find that personal papers and info are not subject to search or copy.... they only need to verify it is not contraband or a bomb... that is, paper and elec info. not what is contained therein. I think there is a chance this will happen, but I wouldn't bet a nickel they will find the US does not have the right to search anything coming into this country. Virtually all industrial nations will search what is coming into their country, too.

Until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the search is constitutional. All the logic in the world will not change that fact.

This law is not about terrorist attacks and existed many years before terrorists were considered a threat. Mostly it was about making sure you paid your tariffs.... then making sure you weren't smuggling drugs.... then about terrorist threats..... God only knows what they will use if for next.

lol - I have a joke with a russian friend of mine. I asked her what KGB stood for (because I really didn't know), and the best translation she could come up with was department for the protection of the country (i.e., homeland security). big laughs all around...

is this one of those 'they are just following orders' kind of arguments?

Strictly speaking, the search is legal and assumed to be constitutional until/unless SCOTUS says otherwise. Should they say otherwise, however, that decision wouldn't mean that it was constitutional but suddenly that changed (assuming decision is not based on a new amendment) because of their decision, but rather that it has always been unconstitutional, but its constitutionality had not been considered by the high court prior to the particular case the SCOTUS heard.

A semantic point, perhaps, but an important one, IMO.

Nope, it's just one of those "comply with the law kind of arguments" or take it it to court and get it changed. It went to court twice, the rational arguments lost. That's the way the process works and that's the way the founding fathers set it up to work. I guess one could always go the civil disobedience route if one felt strongly enough about it. I will save all the discussion about what happens when everybody only complies with the laws/rules they agree with.

Again, this is not the Patriot Act nor Homeland Security... the case was about kiddie porn. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if Homeland Security wasn't pushing from behind the scenes to establish this as a common practice, though.

Agreed. The law changes. And on occasion, so does the constitution. These kinds of changes/interpretations are not all that rare and I would be delighted if the SCOTUS reversed or modified the appeal court's decision.

BTW -- criticism of US policy is common and pretty much a way of life. I don't know a single person who doesn't criticize one policy or another on a regular basis..... abortion, foreign aid, taxes, health care, oil, trade agreements, and most certainly Homeland Security and the war, and many, many others.

yes, criticism is common because - to date - we have had laws which guarantee our freedom to speak so and laws to protect us from unfair treatment under the law if we choose to. whether you know it or not, however, the latter protections have been eroded away almost completely (though - again, to date - the government has only seen fit to exercise its full powers in a handful of cases).

the problem is not that they do; the problem is that they can. I'm sorry if you can't see that, and I hope that we (or our children) don't come to regret it.

and I'll - because it's appropriate - that old saw: "those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it." :) if you don't care to look, then you'll never see it.

No argument or disagreement with that one. It is a downward spiral. It scares me to death. The Supremes have protected us more than once, here's hoping they do it again.

god willing, and knock wood. maybe we should send an email to Diana Ross. ;)

This is getting ugly -- apparently Canada is about to fall into this trap.

Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers

I just heard about this too. The scary thing is the loose interpretation of security personnel. And apparently the government is purposefully leaving it vague. From the way they've worded it, a police officer could just come up to you on the street and require you to surrender the contents of your laptop without a warrant or any justification.

Have you heard if the Conservatives are tabling this as a confidence motion? Otherwise, this strikes me as political suicide. I can't imagine the majority of Canadian voters (who are used to liberal rights) tolerating something so draconian as this.

Michael Geist agrees with you, wdympcf:

"Let's Stand Up to Big Brother"

This just in:
Canadian to Check Electronics for Copyright Infringement?

What scares me is the wording "The agreement proposes any content that may have been copied from a DVD or digital video recorder would be open for scrutiny by". Which in my mind means EVERYTHING.

Architects who infringe "copyright"
 

Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by "tabling" in this context, as this means two very different things in the USA and the UK. And I haven’t a clue as to which of those two the Canadian meaning is closest to.

Perhaps it’s time we apply "copyright infringement" to architecture. How about imposing fines against architects who "visually quote", or use "solutions that appear copied" from previous works of architecture, without having written permission to do so? And we could make this retroactive to antiquity... :cool:

Although we share a border with our American neighbours (note that I do not spell it neighbor) and we are inundated with their culture via television, we Canadians tend to stick much more closely to British spellings and usages. The use of the verb table doesn't deviate from this behaviour (again, not behavior). In short, I was using "table" to mean "put forth for consideration".

Unacceptable American Canadian behaviour!

Unacceptable behavior.

It is of course, especially egregious for it to happen in the US, where until recently we took pride in leading the world to freedom.