Travellers beware--again!

[bernardwest]

<i>a tech-laden traveler of no obvious means traveling out of northern Pakistan on a student visa, with passport

stamps in Syria, Munich, and Indonesia. With a ticket paid for on someone else's credit card that has a billing

address in Lansing, Michigan</i>

<br><br>

 

No one is arguing that people who tick of these sort of warning bells should not be stopped and searched. But it is

the treatment of the ordinary citizen like a criminal that gets peoples goat up. I don't know if it is still happening, but

last I heard, EVERY foreigner entering the US had to be FINGERPRINTED, no less. Talk about paranoia. And talk

about a gross invasion of peoples right to privacy (and yes I know, we are free not to come to your country, but that

isn't the point).

[bernardwest]

No doubt someone will say we have no rights in your country, so I will rephrase that last sentence to read "And talk about a gross invasion of peoples privacy".

[photo_dark]

The point is simply that its an invasion of privacy. It's like if the Wal-mart greeters had the right to search your pockets and text messages on your cell phone on your way out of the store in case you took pictures of their low-low prices or stole a pack of gum. Because of a visible minority, everyone else loses their privacy.Too bad really. I certainly won't be travelling to the states again anytime soon.

[john_yu4]

Think twice if your going to the games and care about your privacy!

 

=================

Olympic visitors' data is at risk

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2008-06-10-olympicspy_N.htm?csp=34

 

"There is a high likelihood ﾗ virtually 100% ﾗ that if an individual is of security, political, or business interest to Chinese ﾅ security services or high technology industries, their electronics can and will be tampered with or penetrated,"

[mike dixon]

<i>I don't know if it is still happening, but last I heard, EVERY foreigner entering the US had to be FINGERPRINTED, no less.</i><P>

Same thing happens in Japan, even though there have never been any terrorist attacks by foreigners there.

[matthew_newton]

What about warrants? I understand when you pass through customs you are effectively letting them search EVERYTHING and they have the legal right to sieze anything that does not conform to customs laws...but what about things they think might not? I really am not that conversant on the various customs laws, but it does seem to be a streach from "we know it violates customs laws" to, "well we have no idea, but we are going to sieze it and look through it to see if maybe it does". A customs search is normally a mild inconvenience, but siezing a laptop or electronic storage could be a major one, and weeks or months isn't normally resonable (sure it might take a long time to get around to seaching the media, I get that).

 

So I say why not laptops in this case? I understand I am preverting and merging two ammendments...but why not resonable search and siezure? I see nothing wrong with customs checks, I see nothing wrong with siezing things that violate customs laws or they strongly suspect does...but if it is not obvious as an outright violation I think they darned well should get a warrant/court order to sieze whatever it is that they want to, inform there person of who and how to keep track of their siezed goods and a way to check to find out when it might eventually clear customs. I find when someone has to go through some 'red tape' they are more reluctant to to capricously apply their powers. Combine that with a little bit of oversight ("so why do you want to sieze this woman's laptop? Oh, she is on under investigation for trafficking in narcotics." of "Why do you want to sieze the CDs? Oh, he looks suspicious...no".) and things might just work a bit more equitably while still addressing the concerns some have stated.

[Matt Laur]

Matthew N: Not to split too many hairs (though, of course, that's what this is all about... we're down to the fine points

of it): the protections against unlawful search and seizure don't apply until you and your goods are <i>in</i> the

country. That's the whole point. Until you and your stuff passes through customs and immigration, you're in the

international airport limbo zone when it comes to those specific legal issues. The theory, of course, is that once you

DO have your laptop/sandwich/whatnot through customs, and you're standing in line for taxi... then all of the

restrictions on searches and seizures, as you described them, are completely in effect. The idea of passing through

customs is that it's the approval of the customs and immigration officials that propel you and your stuff formally into

the country you're entering.

<br><br>

When you're carrying a laptop across the border, you're really not doing anything different than if you were to ship it

across the border by UPS or the postal service. If I went to a retailer in Germany, bought a laptop, and had them ship

it to my U.S. adddress, it could get held up in customs for weeks (though of course this is usually very rare). If the

German store put the laptop in the hands of an employee, to make an insanely expensive delivery to your house in

the U.S., the same thing could happen. And if you carry it, yourself, again - the same thing can happen. This doesn't

just apply to items in sealed factory boxes, obviously.

[sprouty]

I don't think some of you truly understand the limits of our current inspection policies. The next time you fly take out any four once plastic bottle of liquid in your TSA mandated 1-quart zip-lock bag and shove in your back pocket. Smile as you walk through the metal detector.

 

Risk of detection = zero.

 

Inspection is a farce.

[matthew_newton]

I agree with you Matt on everything you are saying. I still don't believe that is the approach customs should be taking however. I am not saying it is improper or against that law that they are doing it, just simply not the best way to go about it in my opinion and I doubt there is much increased 'catching' of people while doing this (I don't doubt they are catching some extra people) that they wouldn't catch in my scenario. There very well might be a significant amount less hassle for travelers. I think that people can be inconvenienced for the sake of law enforcement or the well being of others, but those advantages have to be weighed against the inconvenience or worse for others that the system causes.

[Matt Laur]

Matthew: I would never contend that the specific rules of engagement are perfect, or that the sort of tips or intel that

drive the thorough searching of one laptop vs. the untold thousands that never get a look are without tons of room for

improvement. It's a totally thankless job. People complain about the harrasment, and then they complain that "the

dots were not connected" if security people couldn't predict the acts of deliberate, careful bad guys who spend years

planning things. You can't win

in that situation, so you try to balance. I wouldn't want the job of trying to set that balance day to day, but nor would I

want to be the guy in front of a congressional hearing being asked how something slipped through the cracks and

wound up being part of some really hideous event. The first thing to remember is that the people who have those jobs

are just people like you and me. Some have the social graces and some don't, that's certainly true and always will

be. And of course, some airline passengers are loons, too. Plenty to go around.

[tim_knight]

After 9/11 we had armed Military at all airports, armed undercover Marshalls on each plane with guns. Our government reacted quickly with armed personel till they could get assets around the world and in the US to use other forms of technology to keep us safe. Is it perfect, NO, Have we had another 9/11, NO, Will we have another 9/11, YES. Our little world in the US joined the rest of the world after 9/11.

[jbs]

Matt, you are a fantastic apologist! Good work!

[mike dixon]

Jay, you're awesome at avoiding meaningful discussion by mindlessly applying loaded labels! Good job of lowering

the level of debate!

[jbs]

Not debating, making an observation, Mike.