main

US Agents Can Seize Laptops at Border

Bezhou Feng   on 02 August 2008 - 14:17 · 93 comments & 29067 views

Advertisement (Why?)
In a move sure to agitate privacy advocates, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealed last week that federal agents have now been given the power to seize and detain laptops and certain other electronics without any suspicion of wrongdoing during a border search. In addition, agents can hold these devices for unspecified periods of time, and share data from the laptop with other agencies. The new policy affects anyone entering the country, including US citizens, reported the Washington Post.

The reasoning behind these decisions is clear to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, as shown in a piece published last month in USA Today. "...the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices." Searches have uncovered "violent jihadist materials as well as images of child pornography," he wrote. However, others think differently: "They're saying they can rifle through all the information in a traveler's laptop without having a smidgen of evidence that the traveler is breaking the law," said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "The policies . . . are truly alarming," stated Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who vowed to introduce legislation requiring reasonable suspicion before a search could be performed.

Recent court cases have ruled that only noninvasive border searches are permitted without reasonable suspicion under US law. Whereas body cavity searches and x-ray scans would go beyond the line, suitcase searches are deemed reasonable. The problem, therefore, boils down to whether a search of a laptop's contents constitutes an invasive search, which is what most privacy experts claim. "A laptop can hold [the equivalent of] a major university's library: It can contain your full life," says Peter Swire, a professor of law at Ohio State University in Columbus. "The government's never gotten to search your entire life, so this is unprecedented in scale what the government can get." Advocates of the policy, on the other hand, claim that a laptop is no more than a suitcase, and that requiring probable cause could result in massive delays.

Update: Added some more research into the issue.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 93 additional comments
(4 replies) #1 Redmak on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:23
The land of the free
#1.1 aStRaLgOd on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:36
(Redmak said @ #1)
The land of the free


Indeed......
#1.2 ambushed on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:54
(Redmak said @ #1)
The land of the free

Whoever told you that is your enemy.
#1.3 Brodel on 02 Aug 2008 - 18:02
(ambushed said @ #1.2)
(Redmak said @ #1)
The land of the free

Whoever told you that is your enemy.


Now something must be done, about vengeance, a badge and a gun... although it probably wont be.
#1.4 obsolete_power on 02 Aug 2008 - 19:41
......and the home of the brave!

Which is what you have to be to even breathe in US airports!
(1 reply) #2 theyarecomingforyou on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:32
"If you want to imagine the future, picture a boot stamping on a human face - forever" - 1984, by George Orwell
#2.1 toadeater on 03 Aug 2008 - 05:40
(theyarecomingforyou said @ #2)
"If you want to imagine the future, picture a boot stamping on a human face - forever" - 1984, by George Orwell


Pay attention to this sentence in particular:

"the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices." Searches have uncovered "violent jihadist materials"

So now you can be arrested for possessing "jihadist materials"? Information is now "dangerous contraband"?

It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance from telescreens to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.
#3 jelli on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:38
Thankfully there is someone with some sense still alive and in a position to attempt to do something.

Well done Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)
(7 replies) #4 +/ -Razorfold on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:41
WHAT THE ****?

sorry I had to use that size and color.....

---

Also what if everything on the drive was encrypted with like truecrypt or bitlocker =P I want to see homeland security crack that. What a brilliant waste of taxpayers money, not to mention the other things.

Last edited by / -Razorfold on 02 Aug 2008 - 14:49
#4.1 computergeek83 on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:13
(/ -Razorfold said @ #4)
WHAT THE ****?

sorry I had to use that size and color.....

---

Also what if everything on the drive was encrypted with like truecrypt or bitlocker =P I want to see homeland security crack that. What a brilliant waste of taxpayers money, not to mention the other things.


thats right, it is a waste of taxpayers money, as well as a violation of our rights.

Scan the thing for drugs and explosives and let us be on our way.

Put the border patrol agents where they need to be on the border with mexico armed with assault rifles.
#4.2 BadCubSeattle on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:09
There is actually a Fifth Amendment case in New York State (I believe) that will probably test the Constitutionality of this law. If files are encrypted by password which is *not* written down, but only in the memory of the property owner, the owner under the Fifth Amendment cannot be forced to reveal the password. It falls under the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment also protects against unreasonable search and seizure without due process, so this could be a big battle if someone wanted to take up the fight for it.
#4.3 +GreyWolfSC on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:42
(BadCubSeattle said @ #4.2)
There is actually a Fifth Amendment case in New York State (I believe) that will probably test the Constitutionality of this law. If files are encrypted by password which is *not* written down, but only in the memory of the property owner, the owner under the Fifth Amendment cannot be forced to reveal the password. It falls under the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment also protects against unreasonable search and seizure without due process, so this could be a big battle if someone wanted to take up the fight for it.


The Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to testify against yourself. The only battle would be how long you wanted to stay in jail for contempt of court for trying to hide or tamper with evidence. Then, when you were released, you could plead the Fifth all you wanted at your trial.
#4.4 buletov on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:14
Also what if everything on the drive was encrypted with like truecrypt or bitlocker =P I want to see homeland security crack that.


We don't need no key, we'll break it!
#4.5 Xerxes on 03 Aug 2008 - 00:09
The scary thing is, they don't need the password. They can just pass it on to one of the departments that specializes in this sorta thing and they'll crack it in no time. Also I recall reading that the US government has "backdoor" access to alot of the encryption out there for this very reason...it's a scary world we live in that is for sure. Also in the case that I'm totally wrong about the backdoor thing, even using brute force they'd be able to crack all but the strongest encryption in a short amount of time anyway.
#4.6 Tzimisce on 03 Aug 2008 - 16:08
(Xerxes said @ #4.5)
The scary thing is, they don't need the password. They can just pass it on to one of the departments that specializes in this sorta thing and they'll crack it in no time. Also I recall reading that the US government has "backdoor" access to alot of the encryption out there for this very reason...it's a scary world we live in that is for sure. Also in the case that I'm totally wrong about the backdoor thing, even using brute force they'd be able to crack all but the strongest encryption in a short amount of time anyway.


Not true. Brute force is ineffective in this age. Even with the resources those departments have it would take hundreds of years to brute force just a triple blowfish encryption. Even the brute forcer's you download on the internet usually give you a time scale (starting in hours going up to millenia). If you aren't just lucky brute forcing is pointless.
#4.7 Angry_Badger on 06 Aug 2008 - 06:55
(Xerxes said @ #4.5)
The scary thing is, they don't need the password. ......


You watch too much 24. Theres no way they can crack decent encryption, thats exactly why they make it illegal not to hand over the keys when requested here in the UK - because without them they can do jack.
#5 RichardK on 02 Aug 2008 - 15:01
They would probably detain you until you provided them access to the data on your drive.
#6 eilegz on 02 Aug 2008 - 15:08
now i have to think a lot about it if i travel with my laptop now, jeez more annoyance.
(2 replies) #7 portauthority on 02 Aug 2008 - 15:25
Fighting terrorism and child exploitation is good
#7.1 HalcyonX12 on 02 Aug 2008 - 15:40
Yeah, who cares if everyone is terrorized in the process? Spare the children, rape everyone else!
#7.2 bluarash on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:05
What worries me is that these agents are just part of the general population (kind of like all people in positions of power). They have the same impulses as everyone else. You put them in a position of power with little overhead and what you've got is a nightmare. They can talk all they want about protecting the nation from terrorism and child exploitation... that is good, but I doubt that is the majority of cases that will come of this.

More likely... instead, credit card information and business plans will be at their disposal. What about company trade secrets, private company meetings. Hell, it could be company trade secrets. This information is very valuable. It could easily be stolen and sold to the bidders on the black market. The information will be right there for the taking. All it takes is a few rogues. Most individuals are not going to encrypt their data. If you do... you are likely to be considered guilty.

This is another law that is going to do little to protect our nation, but rather only encumber us in more bureaucratic tape. The majority of terrorists and child predators are not going to get caught. Sure they will catch the dumb ones, but the serious ones will slip through because they are simply more intelligent than this. They are not going to store top secret bombing plans in their my pictures folder on an XP laptop. This is little more than a speed dumb to these individuals, but a grave danger to corporate business travelers.
#8 Lasker on 02 Aug 2008 - 15:26
So, if you are a business man and cross the border with your business laptop, they can take your laptop without any proof of anything? Man, I feel that this country came from being an american dream to be an american nightmare, this country is going to hell, it will be destroy by their own people.
(2 replies) #9 hagjohn on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:22
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " -- Benjamin Franklin

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me. We are turning into a fascist state before our own eyes.
#9.1 +Neo003 on 02 Aug 2008 - 22:11
Quote from Will Durant

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
#9.2 The Gunslinger on 04 Aug 2008 - 09:05
(hagjohn said @ #9)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " -- Benjamin Franklin

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me. We are turning into a fascist state before our own eyes.


This quote is extremely relevant especially in this day and age. And btw, it is not just America, but it is most surprising that people in america are actually letting all of this bullcrap go down. I used to admire the freedoms americans used to enjoy in the past, but these days I pity their enslavement...
(4 replies) #10 TonyLock on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:23
ONLY IN AMERICA!
#10.1 Jaxkesa on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:53
Normally I would 100% agree...what worries me is it's only a matter of time before this starts happening in the UK too (the 51st state)

I used to want to live in America when I was a kid..now I will never visit that place
#10.2 Dakkaroth on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:02
You know, I'm much against the "Only in America" statements that depict us as ignorant fat retards, as it's no better than consistently suggesting that all Europeans don't shave or bathe. However, I will agree very much with this statement this time around. As Jexkesa said, I don't believe it will be long before the rest of the world becomes this way as well. We are easily manipulated when an enemy is created.

Hell, even an episode of Family Guy can draw it out for you if you've seen the one where Lois becomes mayor. She needs money, so she creates a "threat", and suddenly the people are just throwing money at her. Just because it isn't as silly or as comical as the cartoon doesn't mean it isn't happening. What's worse is that we're not just giving them money, we're giving them our rights for this false illusion of "safety" from men in caves.

People keep pushing the tin foil hat on anyone who suggests that the government is in movement for more control. Yet, day after day, we keep giving them more and more. Then, we sit around kicking our feet drinking a beer with our friends saying,"Well, what you gonna do... this whole country is falling apart..." and so forth. I dunno... people just seem so damn backwards I guess.
#10.3 xpablo on 02 Aug 2008 - 21:02
(TonyLock said @ #1)
ONLY IN AMERICA!


Wrong!

Canadian Border Services have the power to do this also!
#10.4 The Gunslinger on 04 Aug 2008 - 09:10
(Dakkaroth said @ #10.2)
People keep pushing the tin foil hat on anyone who suggests that the government is in movement for more control. Yet, day after day, we keep giving them more and more. Then, we sit around kicking our feet drinking a beer with our friends saying,"Well, what you gonna do... this whole country is falling apart..." and so forth. I dunno... people just seem so damn backwards I guess.


I have been labelled one of the tin foil hat brigade many times. The problem is that people REFUSE to acknowledge something that will shatter their version of "reality". The fact is that most people are too comfortable, and moving out of that comfort zone is hard...I am sure most people in America will see this law and go, ahh, who cares, I dont travel anyway, etc...

I feel sorry for the brave few who will speak out against this law, since they will most probably have very little or no support from the sheeple...
(4 replies) #11 Foub on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:29
This is really nothing new. The DEA could seize your property on suspicion alone and they could sell it to "recoup costs" as well without you even being guilty either.


At least in Canada there are laws protecting privacy, for now...
#11.1 bluarash on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:35
Yes, but that is reasonable suspicion. True, it is a lower standard than probable cause. This law allows for an individual agents to seize equipment under neither court supported standards. It is basically a checkpoint... only they get to keep your car. At the very least they get the keys to your car. You than have to trust them to give you the car (computer or device) back. Good luck with that!
#11.2 Foub on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:44
(bluarash said @ #11.1)
Yes, but that is reasonable suspicion. True, it is a lower standard than probable cause. This law allows for an individual agents to seize equipment under neither court supported standards. It is basically a checkpoint... only they get to keep your car. At the very least they get the keys to your car. You than have to trust them to give you the car (computer or device) back. Good luck with that!


Define reasonable?
#11.3 bluarash on 02 Aug 2008 - 21:39
When a person possesses the tools necessary to commit a crime (would have to have more then just a singular device) and if the individual is invasive in avoidance (flees from the scene). That being said, given that this is significantly intrusive behavior the agent should have to have probable cause to seize equipment following US statutory law. Neither standard, however, is met here. It does not meet any kind of a test.
#11.4 excalpius on 04 Aug 2008 - 07:19
Agreed bluarash. This is unconstitutional in the most law school 101 ways.
#12 TonyLock on 02 Aug 2008 - 16:31
This is only the beginning.

In the future, the cops can stop you in the street and take your iPod off you -just incase you have unauthorised music on it.

Your ISPs (AS WELL AS GOOGLE) will provide to any authority what searches you have done.

And all of this can and probably will be done without suspicion or a warrant. If you do not comply, that will be called as criminal offence.

Like it was said in the first reply, welcome to the "HOME OF THE FREE".

God BLESS America!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXl_TyM6aI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUdaPNXC_68
(4 replies) #13 GEIST on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:02
I'm from Europe, and my American employer still wonders why I can't be convinced to visit the company HQ in Hollywood.
#13.1 theyarecomingforyou on 02 Aug 2008 - 18:00
Indeed. I refuse to visit the US on principle.
#13.2 Foub on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:47
The ironic thing is that because of more government in Europe, and the like, Americans accuse Europeans of living with less freedoms and rights.
#13.3 dvb2000 on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:50
(theyarecomingforyou said @ #13.1)
Indeed. I refuse to visit the US on principle.


Just another reason not to visit the USA. In fact unless you were going over there for a laugh, to see how their country and econony are falling apart, wy bother.

So what is it now?

Mandatory fingerprinting
Laptop seizure with no cause

Whats next?, who cares I'm never going back there.
#13.4 Nose Nuggets on 03 Aug 2008 - 05:59
the UK is not much better...
(7 replies) #14 +ispamforfood on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:10
meh, i'm not worried..... theres no way this will stand for long. Supreme court will have to snuff this out. There would be WAY too much backlash for them to sit and do nothing.
#14.1 stifler6478 on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:24
Probably not. Nobody's going to know about this law because border cops aren't going to be checking your laptops unless you've given them reason to. And very few people will give them reason to.

While I do disagree with this solely on the reasoning that they don't need to have suspicion of wrongdoing, I think you'd be overly paranoid to believe that they're going to check it without having that suspicion first anyways. It's a waste of their time otherwise.

-Spenser
#14.2 theyarecomingforyou on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:59
And what happens when you have another muppet like Bush in power; someone even less accountable and more controversial? The law is already in place and you don't need suspicion. It now becomes possible to search every Asian person entering the country. What about political opponents? They can have their laptops seized and examined. Laws should never be passed when there is so much room for abuse - they should be focused to the task at hand, which this one clearly isn't.

If you can't see that a law like this is dangerous then I pity you. I pity your ignorance and your willingness to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety, to paraphrase a very famous individual.
#14.3 Dakkaroth on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:06
(theyarecomingforyou said @ #14.2)
And what happens when you have another muppet like Bush in power; someone even less accountable and more controversial? The law is already in place and you don't need suspicion. It now becomes possible to search every Asian person entering the country. What about political opponents? They can have their laptops seized and examined. Laws should never be passed when there is so much room for abuse - they should be focused to the task at hand, which this one clearly isn't.

If you can't see that a law like this is dangerous then I pity you. I pity your ignorance and your willingness to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety, to paraphrase a very famous individual.


Well said.
#14.4 nmesisca on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:49
(theyarecomingforyou said @ #14.2)
And what happens when you have another muppet like Bush in power; someone even less accountable and more controversial? The law is already in place and you don't need suspicion. It now becomes possible to search every Asian person entering the country. What about political opponents? They can have their laptops seized and examined. Laws should never be passed when there is so much room for abuse - they should be focused to the task at hand, which this one clearly isn't.

If you can't see that a law like this is dangerous then I pity you. I pity your ignorance and your willingness to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety, to paraphrase a very famous individual.



+1 trillion
#14.5 +ispamforfood on 03 Aug 2008 - 11:25
(theyarecomingforyou said @ #14.2)
And what happens when you have another muppet like Bush in power; someone even less accountable and more controversial? The law is already in place and you don't need suspicion. It now becomes possible to search every Asian person entering the country. What about political opponents? They can have their laptops seized and examined. Laws should never be passed when there is so much room for abuse - they should be focused to the task at hand, which this one clearly isn't.

If you can't see that a law like this is dangerous then I pity you. I pity your ignorance and your willingness to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety, to paraphrase a very famous individual.


thanx, jack*ss..... I'm not ignorant, in fact i'm smart enough to know that the us govt was set up to prevent any one part from becoming overly powerful (separation of powers, checks and balances). I'm not worried because theres no way the supreme court could ignore a case related to this, and thus, no way that the law will survive for very long. Even tho two of the justices are picked by Bush, he was still ruled against regarding illegal wiretaps. They do their job, not kiss bush's ass. All it takes is for one person to experience this type of abuse of power and have the resources to take it all the way to the supreme court, and they'll have to throw the law out. It's obviously unconstitutional.
#14.6 theyarecomingforyou on 03 Aug 2008 - 23:00
(ispamforfood said @ #14.5)
thanx, jack*ss..... I'm not ignorant, in fact i'm smart enough to know that the us govt was set up to prevent any one part from becoming overly powerful

Yes, but surely it's hard to have faith in the system when one part is already acting in an obscene manner? If one part of the system has already failed then how can you trust the others? The US already has Guantanamo Bay... clearly the checks and measures aren't working.
#14.7 Dakkaroth on 04 Aug 2008 - 03:08
(ispamforfood said @ #1)
They do their job, not kiss bush's ass. All it takes is for one person to experience this type of abuse of power and have the resources to take it all the way to the supreme court, and they'll have to throw the law out. It's obviously unconstitutional.


I thought the system was supposed to be sure the law is constitutional first, before being made a law at all. If that's not even being checked, wouldn't you say there is a flaw in the system to begin with?

Either way, I can only hope what you say is right. Somehow though... I just don't see it happening. :\
(3 replies) #15 bucko on 02 Aug 2008 - 17:59
Dam now the USA will get all our details the UK government keeps losing.


#15.1 jwjw1 on 02 Aug 2008 - 19:09
.....at least the foreigners aren't taking control over the USA....and yes..the USA is always interested in details about fanatic islamics living abroad.
#15.2 nmesisca on 02 Aug 2008 - 19:24
(jwjw1 said @ #15.1)
.....at least the foreigners aren't taking control over the USA....and yes..the USA is always interested in details about fanatic islamics living abroad.



STFU
#15.3 Foub on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:50
(jwjw1 said @ #15.1)
.....at least the foreigners aren't taking control over the USA....and yes..the USA is always interested in details about fanatic islamics living abroad.


Foreigners don't have to take over America since Corporate America is selling you out whole sale.... Communist China already owns much of your national debt. They don't have to invade, they just have to foreclose.
#16 Airlink on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:09
American border agents act like they are above the law anyways.
They'll randomly pull people out of a line for no reason and subject them to a body cavity search, so confiscating your laptops and iPods for no reason doesn't surprise me. Revolts and disgusts me, yes, but it comes as no surprise.
#17 sibot on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:15
So probably the next indian/pakistani/arab guy carrying a laptop getting in or out of the country, who probably is a harmless guy or has no link at all with anything could get his laptop confiscated by the home land border security or whatever just because hey, they don't need any reasons and they have the power to do that, if they're having a feeling you're a terrorist or a guy who might just be in possession of child pornography, they can take your laptop and all your electronic devices and keep them until they feel like! Great, just simply awesome.
#18 Burst404 on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:19
Anyone have a job opening in the UK? I'm done here.
#19 shinji257 on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:54
Time to add that private system message to my logon...
#20 xpablo on 02 Aug 2008 - 20:56
On July 24, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that US Customs and Border Patrol Officers had the right to search and seize a person’s laptop computer, computer discs and other electronic media.
(5 replies) #21 oldgeek on 02 Aug 2008 - 21:37
I have no problem with this, if people were allowed to bring laptops etc. over the border without impunity surely it will be used to bring in all sorts of evil. If you have nothing to hide you have no problem. It makes perfect sense to me in the time we live in.
#21.1 Foub on 02 Aug 2008 - 22:40
Irrelevant. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to be secure in one's person, and property, against unreasonable search and seizure. You don't protect virginity through rape.

If you think that it is ok then you wouldn't mind if we put cameras all through your home, even the bathroom, 24/7. After all if you got nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem.
#21.2 nmesisca on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:45
(oldgeek said @ #21)
I have no problem with this, if people were allowed to bring laptops etc. over the border without impunity surely it will be used to bring in all sorts of evil. If you have nothing to hide you have no problem. It makes perfect sense to me in the time we live in.


they would still leave with my laptop/phone for god knows, maybe six months.. so, no thanks dude, you really dont understand ****.
#21.3 artnada on 03 Aug 2008 - 06:57
(oldgeek said @ #21)
I have no problem with this, if people were allowed to bring laptops etc. over the border without impunity surely it will be used to bring in all sorts of evil. If you have nothing to hide you have no problem. It makes perfect sense to me in the time we live in.


I was wondering when that old chesnut appeared!

You Sir may regret the day you said that. Because the rights & freedoms of the majority are being eroded due to a miniscule minority.

When you have checkpoints on every street corner, and you're ordered to have state radio playing in your house 24/7, then you'll wish you hadn't said those words.

Don't thingk it can happen? Look at China then look at the way your Country is going.

Even ours (UK), is going that way. We have more surveillance cameras watching us than China now!!!

I have nothing to hide but I have real problem!!!

Last edited by artnada on 03 Aug 2008 - 07:38
#21.4 CBTech on 04 Aug 2008 - 04:43
@ Oldgeek ----------

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin


You sicken me. You are one of those. An argument of an idiot. Thank God and the fathers that the second amendment was made for exactly the rhetoric your kind spew.





#21.5 este on 04 Aug 2008 - 13:18
(Foub said @ #21.1)
You don't protect virginity through rape.


lol..
(1 reply) #22 integrity on 02 Aug 2008 - 21:38
Yeah the United States surely did end as we know it.

Why we let these people control us like that I'll never figure out..
#22.1 Foub on 02 Aug 2008 - 22:41
You always get the government you deserve when you don't vote.
(2 replies) #23 peacemf on 02 Aug 2008 - 21:46
ah its ok!

i heard we're doing something similar in the UK
(the ability to check that your mp3's are legal!!!!

what a world we live in!

anyway......about this "law"

you know that they will do this for just about every coloured person, and pretty much go through your photos and probably your credit card details or documents that you have stored.......

how does my gf's nude photos help fight terrorism?!!!!
#23.1 integrity on 02 Aug 2008 - 21:51
can't get off guard jacking off to those photos now can we?
#23.2 dvb2000 on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:55
(peacemf said @ #23)
ah its ok!

i heard we're doing something similar in the UK
(the ability to check that your mp3's are legal!!!!


And how exactly do they do that? There is no difference between legal or otherwise MP3's.

do you have to bring receipts for every piece of music you're briniging into the country?
(1 reply) #24 ThePitt on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:08
"the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices."
haha... Sure. And if that ppl say that is because they are right. I bet all the cocain cartels are aware about this and now try to traffic their product in atomic bombs
#24.1 dvb2000 on 02 Aug 2008 - 23:52
(ThePitt said @ #24)
"the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices."


LOL - what idiots

If they are just talking about some data, anyone with access to the internet can send "the most dangerous contraband" over to the USA without even leaving to comfort of their airmchair in IRAQ (or wherever).
#25 QuarterSwede on 03 Aug 2008 - 00:58
How is this going to help when you can keep your data on the internet?

"Serenity now!"
#26 Harper on 03 Aug 2008 - 01:15
R.I.P. U.S.A.
(1 reply) #27 ChopSuey on 03 Aug 2008 - 05:38
Looks like this is another step in changing "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent".
#27.1 artnada on 03 Aug 2008 - 07:00
(ChopSuey said @ #27)
Looks like this is another step in changing "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent".


Already happening here in the UK.

Like photography? Don't take photos in public now, even though it's perfectly legal, if someone PCSO or Copper sees you they will [try to] demand you delete the pictures!

We're all terrorists in this County now. I weep for the future of the UK.

Guilty until proven innocent!

Last edited by artnada on 03 Aug 2008 - 07:37