I think of the sniffer dogs at airports, they don't search for explosives or drugs per se, but the signature of these substances by smell - how does this differ from hash analysis ? Does a warrant exist for the dogs or is there a generic overarching allowence ?
A good question which I glossed over and it shows the limits of Constitutional protection when national security is an issue. Normally, police would need probable cause to detain and search an individual or premises and sniffer dogs would appear to violate the probable cause standard as well as the protection against self-incrimination. But in the case of transportation security, it is well accepted that certain individual rights are trumped by the need to protect the public welfare.
In part, this is an issue of context. Police could not, normally, go door to door with sniffer dogs arresting anyone that the dogs identified as being suspect since we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes. But step into a public setting and this right is no longer absolute. In going to an airport or public concert, there is an expectation that security measures will be employed which could lead to the identification of contraband and the persons possessing it. In freely walking into that setting, you are giving up some of your expectations of privacy.
In the case, above, the court viewed the computer as having been taken from the defendant from his legal residence, without his knowledge or consent. Therefore, he had the same expectations of privacy as if it had been in his home, with the exception of the videos viewed by the possessor.
Ok, on the basis of the above, what do you think of the legal basis for border officials to examine the contents of a hard disk for "national security" reasons ?
We already submit to violation of normal probable cause for the dogs, and indeed for the x-ray machines as well ( which also answers the question of "looking inside a container" … ), so a scan for signatures of files or keywords known to be "not in the interest of national security" seems to me to be well within the powers already in use ?
(Thanks -) )
At the US border travellers enter a Twilight Zone. Research the "Arnold" saga. US Customs has assumed the authority to seize any and all digital items entering the US. "Fishing for felonie with no warrants." So far the Courts have tolerated this. But a traveller re-entering the US has about a 10% chance of having his laptop, media, cellphone, camera, thumbdrives "impounded" for no reasonable suspicion. Company data (usually the purpose for such trips in the first place), personal data, your most intimate thoughts, &c., scoured for evidence of illegality. Too bad if you run a company from your $5000 laptop, need your cellphone to call your wife, or have privileged items with you. Not even in the discussion. There is no set procedure for when– or how– to get your property back. When ICE is through with it they will let you know. Did they keep copies of all this [company, personal] data? No one is telling. And there is nothing you can do about it.
It is a cesspool and Congress is getting into the act. But international travellers are well-adivsed to employ whole-disk encryption. You will not get your expensive gear back but at least ICE can do nothing with the data.