Feds want your laptop

What I want to know is, if they find a bunch of mp3s on your player, how are they supposed to tell whether you downloaded them from Limewire (presumably illegal) or from emusic (perfectly legal)? Will they just assume that a song in a non-DRMed format (like mp3) is pirated?

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
[b]Bacchus and Ceti comments should be taken seriously.

But, at least in the USA, if you password protect your laptop you do not have to give the authorities the password.

A Federal judge recently made a ruling on this point.

If you are interested Goggle: Vermont, Niedermeier, Boucher, computer and pornography.[/b]

---

Thanks.

But, better yet, here's a copy of the [url=http://www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf]the actual court opinion[/url].

Not to quibble too much, but a ruling by a single federal magistrate judge is not “the law” in the U.S.

A federal judge’s opinion does not represent any binding precedent. It is strictly limited to that specific case and the hundreds of other federal judges ruling on the exact same facts in the future are free to have a different opinion. The only time a case decision becomes “the law” is when an appellate court says it’s “the law” (and then only for the geographic or subject-matter jurisdiction of the particular appellate court). Only the U.S. Supreme Court can establish “the law” for the U.S.

A quick read of the ruling shows that this isn't the first ruling. The "act-of-production doctrine" goes back to a Surpreme Court ruling in 1976. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell]United States v. Hubbell, wikipedia[/url].

If you secured your laptop with a physical key you could be forced to product it. If you use a password you can not be forced to produce what you know. Just make sure you have no physical copy of the password.

[ 30 May 2008: Message edited by: scooter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
[b]A quick read of the ruling shows that this isn't the first ruling. The "act-of-production doctrine" goes back to a Surpreme Court ruling in 1976. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell]United States v. Hubbell, wikipedia[/url].[/b]

---

Every court opinion cites prior cases for support for the court's opinion. But, that's why there are appellate courts (to address the inevitable disagreement over new or difficult issues that the lower courts are trying to rule on).

So, another federal judge could have heard this exact same case and ruled in a different manner...even citing the same prior cases in her opinion as support for her opinion.

For example, a federal judge ruling that execution by injection is not "cruel and unusual punishment" would cite the Constitution and opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the opinions of Federal Courts of Appeal, as support for her opinion. Another federal judge may cite the same authorities but come to a different conclusion. Ultimately, the matter could remain "unsettled law" (and thus different courts coming to different conclusions) until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling one way or the other.

It's all a very messy process... [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR200808...' Laptops May Be Detained At Border
No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies[/url]

Washington Post, August 1, 2008 [excerpts]

quote:

---

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The policies...are truly alarming," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government's border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.

DHS officials said the newly disclosed policies -- which apply to anyone entering the country, including U.S. citizens -- are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism. Officials said such procedures have long been in place but were disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter.

Civil liberties and business travel groups have pressed the government to disclose its procedures as an increasing number of international travelers have reported that their laptops, cellphones and other digital devices had been taken -- for months, in at least one case -- and their contents examined.

The policies state that officers may "detain" laptops "for a reasonable period of time" to "review and analyze information." This may take place "absent individualized suspicion."

The policies cover "any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form," including hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover "all papers and other written documentation," including books, pamphlets and "written materials commonly referred to as 'pocket trash' or 'pocket litter.' "

Reasonable measures must be taken to protect business information and attorney-client privileged material, the policies say, but there is no specific mention of the handling of personal data such as medical and financial records....

"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. Notably, he said, the policies "don't establish any criteria for whose computer can be searched."

Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts "do not infringe on Americans' privacy."...

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote in an opinion piece published last month in USA Today that "the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices."...

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco upheld the government's power to conduct searches of an international traveler's laptop without suspicion of wrongdoing. The Customs policy can be viewed at: [url=http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissability/search_authorit... (5 pp. .pdf)[/url].

---

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]