I'm glad to see this issue in the newspapers finally. It's been floating around various internet fora for a while now.
And just so the reader is clear, this isn't a "please boot your computer so we know it isn't just an empty case"-test. This is a "we're going to remove your hard drive and make a forensic copy of all the data on it"-search. There are reports--which I have not personally substantiated--that TSA is also making copies of the data contained on Blackberries, iPhones, and [insert your favorite digital organizer/phone here]s. Additionally--and I can't even fathom a "good reason" to do it--there have been a few reports of TSA popping the SIMs out of cellular phones (reported in assorted Slashdot comments--believer beware).
Currently, government agents have broad authority to conduct searches at the border. They have exercised this power for nearly as long as the United States is old. But these searches at their current scope should cease immediately. The U.S. Constitution is clear:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Of course it doesn't mention anything about airports or computers--these things weren't invented yet. But that's irrelevant. It's not that the searchs are at airports. Or that data is hidden away on a computer. The justification for these overly intrusive searches stems from their location: at the border. And borders did exist back in the day.
The Constitution doesn't utter a word about when, where, and under what specific circumstances. It doesn't say you have Fourth Amendment rights at Location X but not Location Y. The Constitution asks a simple question: is the search unreasonable? If the answer is yes, it's unconstitutional. Simple. Elegant. Any person with basic reading skills can look at the Law and understand what it means.
--Now, I know some will read too far into this, crying, "But-but-but what about our safety? All searches should be reasonable--we need to protect the children from terrorists!" So without getting into why such screenings are ineffectual wastes of tax monies, let us assume--just for argument's sake--that such searches are indeed for safety concerns. Safety, in this context, means physical safety. And yet, theoretically at least, we are nation that proudly proclaims we cannot be threatened by mere ideas and information. Yet, I have never witnessed a bits and bytes trying to smuggle uranium or suicide a bomb a café. I'd go so far to assert that it's not physically possible. Indeed, dishonest to even suggest.
Email. Photos. Documents. Bills. Invoices. Internet browsing habits. Documents. Calendars. Correspondence. Tax records. Documents. --BAM! Everything wide open. Is this a reasonable search? You tell me. I cannot fathom a "reason".
Lawyers, of all people, should be particularly concerned. Every client file contained on your laptop (and many you've deleted), every email stored on your BlackBerry--sounds like it's all fair game. And not just for a casual inspection, but copying too. Very disconcerting. Particularly for lawyers in states with stricter ethical rules. California comes to mind.
I'm interested to see how the courts address the public's use of encryption. Should a court order a person to disclose a password so TSA can snoop through his files? Truly, if many courts continue to falter in their constitutional duties, diligent use of data encryption will be the only reliable way to protect information from identity theft and other prying eyes. Scenarios are already cropping up. . .
--The thing that strikes me, curiously, is that by doing these searches and duping hard drives, TSA is committing pretty blatant copyright infringment. (Thanks to the misguided efforts of the RIAA, copyright infringement is so easy a child can do it--literally.) So... who's got the chutzpah? How long 'til it happens?
