Mike the Usurper wrote:
No, they're leaving that as an avenue for someone else to explore.
I understand, thats true. I'm not satisfied that I like the idea, however, IANAL. While we're waiting for someone else to explore this fascinating intellectual question people are having their computers searched at random.
A non-routine search can be reasonable if there is reasonable suspicion, which is a very weak standard, but not the same as random. In this case they almost certain meet that standard, but I'm OK with that. I'd just prefer that these kinds of searches not be performed at random. People should generally expect that their laptops will not be subjected to forensic analysis at the border.
The point you made about inconvenience is a possible place where they might draw the law... For example, it might be considered "routine" to list someone's browser history but non-routine to fire up a copy of EnCase. I'd personally prefer that the line be draw with regard to impact on privacy, and not on the traveller's convenience. There are several reasons for this, foremost among them is that technology improvements over time will increase the instrusiveness of the searches possible without inconveniencing the traveller.
But, honestly, I don't like this idea of random border searches at all. I think we've already slid way, way down the slope here. The idea that disassembling someone's car is ok to do at random seems ridiculous, and I'd like to see this whole thing reigned in.
yep. I agree. I was just taking a stab at what the 9th Circuit might say is reasonable. At a personal level, I think the whole thing is a giant reeking pile of crap, I was just looking at the legal standards.
Frankly, it all sucks.
