DHS Watchdog OKs ‘Suspicionless’ Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border

[xg4bx]

''The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s 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 nation’s 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.''

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...rder-seizures/

[tubemonkey]

Chalk up another win for the bad guys

[rogue_librarian]

It's somehow understandable that there are different rules for border crossings, but their definition or "border area" goes inland for 100 (!) miles.

People travelling in these areas, without any intent of leaving the country or any suspicion of recently having crossed a border shouldn't be stripped of their 4th amendment rights.

This "constitution free zone" (© ACLU) includes Boston, NYC, Washington D.C., all of Florida, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and Seattle, to name just a few.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

This "constitution free zone" (© ACLU) includes Boston, NYC, Washington D.C., all of Florida, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and Seattle, to name just a few.

That pretty much encompasses the majority of the US population. How convenient.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That pretty much encompasses the majority of the US population. How convenient.

What border is Sacramento near? Or are we counting airports as borders for these purposes?

[teh603]

National security is always a sticky area. Just saying, there's some areas where we're less than a heartbeat away from a disaster worse than 9/11. Most of those are close to the border.

Then there's also the issue that Probable Cause in court is vastly different from reasonable suspicion outside of one. I could reasonably suspect that someone has the plans for an attack on (for example) an oil refinery, but I can't pick them up unless they do something that gives me Probable Cause. And by the time I get that, they could've already gone and done the deed.

This isn't always about a few bootlegged PDfs, MP3s, and MKVs, y'know.

[tubemonkey]

This thread belongs in the political section.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

What border is Sacramento near? Or are we counting airports as borders for these purposes?

The actual west coast, of course, but see for yourself:

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

What border is Sacramento near? Or are we counting airports as borders for these purposes?

It has a seaport.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by teh603

National security is always a sticky area. Just saying, there's some areas where we're less than a heartbeat away from a disaster worse than 9/11. Most of those are close to the border.

Then there's also the issue that Probable Cause in court is vastly different from reasonable suspicion outside of one. I could reasonably suspect that someone has the plans for an attack on (for example) an oil refinery, but I can't pick them up unless they do something that gives me Probable Cause. And by the time I get that, they could've already gone and done the deed.

This isn't always about a few bootlegged PDfs, MP3s, and MKVs, y'know.

It's exactly this sort of thinking that facilitates government overreach. As soon as someone questions something like the current (massively wasteful) security measures at airports, someone else will scream 9/11, and all arguments about whether it's actually a good idea cease. This sort of argument is barely above the level of "well, if you have nothing to hide..."

[Apache]

I live in South Georgia and I am in this zone.
And I live more than 100 miles from any coast.
Apache

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

It's exactly this sort of thinking that facilitates government overreach. As soon as someone questions something like the current (massively wasteful) security measures at airports, someone else will scream 9/11, and all arguments about whether it's actually a good idea cease. This sort of argument is barely above the level of "well, if you have nothing to hide..."

There's no easy middle ground, unfortunately. Either you have an impossibly weak government with no ability to protect its citizens, or you have room for massive abuse.

[gastan]

Where's Ben Franklin when you need him?

[silverraven]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
That one?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Apache

I live in South Georgia and I am in this zone.
And I live more than 100 miles from any coast.

If you're more than 100 miles from the coast, then you are out of the zone. A big chunk of Georgia, though, is less than 100 miles from a coastline, as you can see on the map.

It should also be fairly clear that the 4th Amendment hasn't been suspended in all of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, etc. Illegal searches are not being reinstated en masse because of this policy, which by the way has been found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

If this is a policy Americans don't want, then we should try to get rid of it. That doesn't justify hyperbolic claims about the policy.