Like I said, I did not necessarily "agree", just said I understand why they did it. For example, hiding drugs in your car at the border. How much search and seizure should you allow when a trained drug-sniffing dog sits down next to your tires? Unfortunately, we do not have "information sniffing dogs".

But, schneb, the point I was trying to make is that the information I want need not be on the computer itself -- I can still download it later. Further, come to that, I don't need my computer to get that info; I can rent one. What are they going to find? An informed miscreant will have the obvious bases covered. I would think that, in this day and age, no one in their right mind would cross the border with a shared folder of contraband music files, bootleg versions of software, or a folder full of kiddie porn.

Didn't say it was a smart law either. And yes, anything you could have on your computer can be downloaded later. What they are probably looking for is "communications", such as instructions or coordination. All the contraband that you have listed is easily available online, so that it obviously NOT what they looking for or interested in.

Security at these various locations are mostly looking for hard contraband that is to be resold in the United States. Information, on the otherhand, can be be sent via Internet with impunity. The purpose of the law is to allow search and review regarding the charges pending on said individual. The same as "patting down" for evidence or weapons. Once you are suspect, your baggage is searched. The laptop and other electronic devices are also considered baggage. Just electronic in nature.

Believe me, they do not have time to search everyone's electronic devices--that would be ridiculous. It's that one person out of thousands that requires the search. And this is only after a thorough questioning and finding holes in said testimony. There is a process. If they pass the verbal screening, they are free to go once everything checks out. If they fail, then they examine more closely to build a proper case.

And why is it that I can't whip into any hot-spot coffee shop and get those from a remote server, or set up a chat room, or use coded messages in an available forum or chat room, or set up a Wired server (which I use in the administration of part another site) and exchange files that way?

This is the closest anyone can get to a reasonable excuse for conducting these searches, but it still doesn't cut it.

Instructions and coordination would be memorized ahead of time, and even if it weren't, it would likely be encoded in such a way as to appear innocuous, or worse: it would only make sense after the attack. If Mohamed Atta wrote Ahmed al-Ghamdi a note to meet Majed Moqed at the office on 9/11 at 8:00 am, and don't forget to bring his tools, how would that alert an inspector?

I'm not arguing that there are not "ways around" or memorization ahead of time. What I am saying is that a luggage case is open for thorough search and seizure if something occurs to give the inspectors pause. Luggage and carry-ons are considered "containers" and open to such review. This law is basically labeling a laptop as "a container" as well and thereby also qualified as being under the same requirements.

I know, I know, there are many ways around this. For example, I can move all my User Account folder content onto an iPod or my camera's memory card and none would be the wiser. The point is to identify the laptop as a container, and thereby open to scrutiny.

Open to scrutiny (at least from my perspective) is reasonable -- that's the way borders everywhere (except between European countries) work. What got me was that they could hold it at will. I've travelled across the US/Cdn border thousands of times, sometimes with sensitive documents (typically proprietary info for which I had signed an NDA), and yes, on occasion, customs agents have opened the brief case and riffled through -- they didn't read them -- they just looked to assure themselves they were documents. I suppose it is in their purview to keep them, but then I'd have to inform my client and go back home (I actually did that once -- On a trip to Denver, I was stopped one evening by US Customs in Toronto and back-roomed for long enough to miss the last flight (mistaken identity, apparently -- after a few questions, they let me go, but had kept me waiting for nearly an hour). Having irrevocably missed the next morning's early meeting (too far from the Denver Airport to get to by the earliest flight), I just caught the last flight back to Halifax. The client wasn't pleased, but then neither was I.

Yes, but I'm (we're?) saying that there is a huge distinction between viewing/treating it as a physical container and a digital container. As a physical container, search away. As a digital container, there is no justification for a warrant-less search.

I read this first as "For example, hiding drugs in your cat at the border".

http://www.acidlogic.com/graphics/fat_freddys_cat.jpg

"Oh no, I just spent my last $40 on catnip!"

Is it possible to use a laptop to detonate a device in baggage or use this possibility to hi-jack a plane?

Is it possible to use a laptop to communicate in flight?

Are there other ways in which a laptop aboard a plane could be used to aid a terrorist plot?

I have trouble understanding why they would want to look for information which could easily be brought in or out in any number of ways. Surely, there is more to this than checking for copyright infringement or kiddie porn.

If the intent was to destroy the plane, they could easily shoot it down on takeoff with a shoulder launched weapons... or even an AK-47.... or just destroy it on the ground before take off.

Try to think like a terrorist.... what else is there?

I don't think so -- bluetooth wouldn't get through the metal floor, nor, I would think, would a WiFi signal.

Not unless the carrier provides a hot spot.

I suppose the lithium-ion battery could be subverted to start a hell of a fire, but can't imagine you'd detect that by examining the files.

In my view, it's just another piece of "maybe we'll want to, and anti-terror trumps rights".

Schneb, I think you're missing a central point of being a democracy: we each have only the rights that everyone has. Take away something from one person because you're suspicious of them, and you end up taking it away from all of us.

One of your own said it all.

An interesting read along the same lines as my last post:

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/blog...008-07-10.html

That does not make any sense. If you take away the freedom of someone for destroying my property, it takes nothing away from me. On the contrary, it adds to my security knowing these people are behind bars.

And BTW, the true definition of the word "liberty" is not to ability to do what you want--that is "license", but rather the power to do what you aught.

The harm is in the culprits ability to exploit the freedom for the sake of terror. They do it all the time. They have no regard for freedom except for access to perpetrate their evil deeds. A laptop can be a briefcase for further evidence against one who has been taken aside for suspicion.

NovaScotia, unfortunately was the victim of mistaken identity, and I think security should have bent over backward to help him get a new flight. Improving on technology and database access, you lower the possibility of such errors.

The great problem with America today is that they have lost the true definition of freedom and liberty. My children have freedom and liberty to be themselves. However, they know by my strong hand of discipline, that they do not have carte blanche to do what ever they darn well please.

This is, and always has been, the weakness (Achilles heel) of a free and just society -- the bad guys have the same rights and freedoms as the good until they are proven to break a law and lose the right to freedom of person in a court of law. The rule of law, applied equally to all, is the key difference between democratic societies and all others. That this system gives the bad guys some advantages over law abiders is taken as an intended consequence that avoids injustice. Any attempt to avoid that "exploitation" inevitably dilutes the rights and freedoms of everyone else.

you are confusing "freedom" with "rights". it's one thing to take away someone's freedom because they broke the law; it's quite another thing to take away someone's rights because you're afraid they will break the law. freedom is individual: you can take it away from anyone when they behave badly; rights are collective: everyone has them, or no one has them.

and "liberty" is not about action, it's about choice. you can make correct choices or incorrect choices, but if you can't make choices at all then you have no liberty.

When you lose your freedom based on your choice to break the current law, you lose rights. You do not have the right vote, walk out when you wish, etc. You are GRANTED rights, such as a right to an appeal.

Freedom is generated by the collective society. It took thousands of lives of troops to secure our freedom, and many politicians to balance it within law, and a responsible public to take advantage and not abuse it. Freedom was guaranteed within our Bill of Rights created by the Founding Fathers. Rights are individual as one protects them with lawful behavior. As NovaScotian pointed out quite well...

It's an incredibly difficult balance--especially after a spectacular attack such as Pearl Harbor, The Cole, The Twin Tower Parking Explosion, and 9/11.

Where government crosses a line, however, is when power is abused to deny rights based on political agendas. We see this all the time. I do not see this law as being one of those moves, but rather providing access to cyber-information in a developing scenario. We can knee-jerk and call it invasive, but I do not see it that way at all. Especially knowing how well I can bypass any probings on their part. And such work arounds are just getting easier to create. If I am so afraid of what they will find, I can just upload it to a hidden folder on my iPod.

in fact, no. rights are inherent, not granted (remember "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."). if you go to prison for a crime, your rights are still protected - that's why prisoners have trials and appeals; why they aren't tortured or killed at the whim of guards; why they are allowed access to mail and visitors. there are only a few states that remove voting rights from felony criminals, and that's a fairly hot issue at the moment (because the states that do it have inordinately high incarceration rates for minorities, which looks very much like a ploy to disenfranchise entire non-white sections of the populace). This was the entire Guantanamo thing - prisoners were intentionally held off US soil, because if they had been put in US jails, US law would have insisted that they be granted the same rights as any normal prisoner.

even your own phrasing shows this - "Freedom was guaranteed within our Bill of Rights" - then why wasn't it called the 'Bill of Freedoms'?

You cannot have freedom if you have no rights - having no rights is a state of abject slavery, where you are subject to whatever it is people in power want to do to you. even with rights, you might not have freedom (that's because you need to respect rights universally; either you curb any urges you have to violate the rights of others, or society will curb those urges for you). if you confuse the rights and freedoms, you'll almost always end up having neither