A charwoman stands in line at the airport , waiting to get throughcustomsto return to the United States . She train herBlackBerryfor vitamin E - mail messages and shifts her computer briefcase to her other hand . Two uniformed men walk up to the traveler and ask her to step out of the line . They explain they ’re channel a random lookup and that they involve to look at her phone , herlaptopand any other electronic devices she has . The womanhood asks when she can expect her dimension to be return to her . The men in uniform tell her they ca n’t be certain ; they ’ll come back the electronics when they ’re done searching .
harmonise to the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco , such a scenario is not only potential , it ’s all legal . Federal Customs and Border Patrol agents have the rightfulness to confiscate and examine electronic devices belonging to anyone entering the United States . The agent are n’t required to have likely cause before research someone ’s devices . And they can seem for any evidence of any criminal offence at all .
This policy worry many international businesses that employ hoi polloi who travel to and from the United States on a even basis . It also might add up as a shock to many U.S. resident physician . In most cases , citizens are guaranteed security against unreasonable lookup and seizure . Some hoi polloi say that a policy in which a governing agent could confiscate any electronic machine for an indefinite distance of fourth dimension with no probable reason contradicts the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution . The 9th Circuit Court seems to feel otherwise .
U.S. Homeland Security officials take that the insurance policy is in post to protect the safety of the Carry Nation . They also claim that agents will not profile rider or arrest hoi polloi ground solely on their heathenish background or country of origin . But some critics say that in practice agents seem to target people from specific countries . An article in The Seattle Times suggest that government broker focus on Muslims and people from the Middle East or the southern parts of Asia more than others [ source : Tu ] .
mete searches hang under the class of delicate issue – proponents point out that an effectual search might pull through meg of liveliness while critics say the potential for insurance abuse is far too in high spirits to absolve such an approaching .
The United States v. Arnold
On July 17 , 2005 , Customs and Border Patrol broker at Los Angeles International Airport stopped a U.S. citizen bring up Michael Timothy Arnold for secondary inquiring . Arnold had just arrived at the airport from the Philippines . During the questioning , an agent asked Arnold to turn on hislaptopcomputer . Arnold abide by , and the broker hand the laptop computer over to a coworker .
The second agent look at Arnold ’s electronic computer desktop and saw that two folders hold pictures . The agent start the folders and regard the exposure . Before long , the agent began to mistrust Arnold possessed child pornography . The agents seized the laptop computer and other equipment but let Arnold go .
Two weeks later , federal agents secured a warrant against Arnold based on the fabric find on Arnold ’s digital media . That included not only the laptop computer , but several CDs , a portable hard drive and aflash memorydrive . agent bill Arnold with possession and fare of tike pornography .
Arnold ’s lawyer file a motion to suppress the evidence found by the agents . They arrogate that the agents overstep their assurance by research Arnold ’s electronic data . They indicate that while it ’s almost 2nd nature to expect agents to search for potential physical threats that could pose an immediate risk – a bomb disguised as a laptop , for example – really searching the contents of the devices was another matter .
The territory court agreed with Arnold ’s lawyers and suppressed the grounds . But the criminal prosecution appealed the determination , and the case went to a higher court . That court invert the district court ’s decision , saying that search at the U.S. border , includingcustoms , are exempt from the qualification political science agent must meet for searches elsewhere [ source : United States v. Arnold ] .
Arnold ’s lawyer invoke that opinion , and the case moved to the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco , California . In a 3 - 0 decision release on April 21 , 2008 , the court ruled to uphold the former royal court ’s decisiveness to reverse the opinion [ germ : United States v. Arnold ] . The court ’s conclusion means that in guild to protect national security , federal agents can sequester electronics without likely crusade and search them for evidence of a law-breaking .
While the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says it designate to use this policy to help protect the United States fromterrorist attacks , the judgment itself say agents can expect for grounds of any crime at all . That mean factor can disentangle through file and see for anything that might be illegal . Electronic searches can take days , weeks or even month to complete . Agents can confiscate electronics for an indefinite length of prison term – there ’s no way of knowing when , or if , the governance will return a equipment to the owner .
Laptop Seizure Policy Concerns
Much of the response online to the 9th Circuit Court ’s decision has been critical . There are numerous connection sites that lob the termunconstitutionalaround . Others focus on how masses can protect their equipment and information when journey to the United States . A few entanglement sites abide the initiative , pointing out the very real difficulty in protect a nation like the United States from the threat of a terrorist attempt .
Some critic say that the insurance is too broad to be considered a protection against terrorism . They say that if federal agent can search electronic gadget for grounds of any crime at all – as was the case with Michael Arnold – then the insurance policy does n’t really target terrorist . Instead , it targets everyone .
Some people shift from critique into the realm ofconspiracy theory . These multitude indicate that organization like the Recording Industry Association of America ( RIAA ) are buttonhole for these policy . The theoretician believe that these organizations desire to use federal agents to search for illegally obtained music or media file cabinet . in effect , the federal politics would roleplay as the music police . While there ’s little doubt these organizations will profit from the U.S. policy on search and seizures , there ’s no real grounds to link them with the determination of the courts .
According to The Washington Post , several international businesses are vary their policy on international change of location . The businesses are urging executives to avoid storing confidential line selective information onlaptopswhen move to the United States . International businesses fear that the U.S. policy will compromise critical , proprietary information . In addition , if the critical data only exist on the confiscated equipment , the business is at the mercy of the U.S. government [ source : Nakashima ] .
Some bloggers focalise not on changing the policy or protesting , but on how to get around the scheme . Here are a few of the method they suggest :
Of course , hide out selective information from customs agents is n’t advisable . For one thing , if a government factor pick up on that someone is hiding information , things will probably get much worse before they get better . For another , if enough people take measures to blot out information , the government might promote for more invasive policies . It ’s probably safe to say this chronicle is far from over .
