can border agents search your laptops?

Net2Infinity , I really don't quite understand what point exactly, you are trying to make?

Given the title of the thread, it looks like a question on general principles, albeit brought to attention by an individual case with individual circumstances and an individual judgement.

My comment is that these "border agents" sound a bit like our Customs Officers, and yes they can, and yes it is right and proper that they should have unfettered rights of search and seizure................

And I can assure you, that in the case of that particular sleazeball, in this country they would have double rubber gloved and given him an intensive anal examination................probably in triplicate :eek: ................... it is a terrible thing when a man actually feels proud of paying his taxation?

You cannot complain about the law enforcement agencies not protecting society in general and children in particular if you then want to change your constitution and/or legal system into a pervert's charter.

If these law enforcement officers did not have such powers the whole anti terrorist "war" would just collapse.

From the little, and possibly inaccurate data that I have read so far, I believe that the law enforcement agencies involved should be commended for their actions, efficiency and dilligence.

I have my own views on kiddie pr0n merchants............. unfortunately these are mostly illegal

That is the REAL ISSUE that I see being raised here. :eek:

As in my previous post my point is ......

"I believe you were debating based on the contents of the article and I was referring to the facts from the actual court proceeding. Perhaps this is where the confusion has arisen. I have no doubt of your vast legal knowledge as I was just merely informing others of the actual facts of the case."


My point was that the article makes it sound like they took his laptop from him and ran Encase to figure out what he was doing. As the actual court documents indicate, the accused turned the laptop on for the border agents and he merely looked at the browser history.

My original point before all the flames started was that that article was written by some left wing group and that was the point and fact stated in my original post. I am not a law scholar, nor do I claim to be .... but I am willing to give up some freedoms for the greater good. However, the article was based on someones political agenda and not the actual facts of the case. My intent was to merely provide additional details so that everyone could make an informed decision.

I appreciate your candor Nihil, as its better to ask questions seeking clarification then it is to merely flame. I still don't see what I said that was out of line to begin with. If you could point that out to me I would be most appreciative.

Hey, Net2Infinity please do not misunderstand me....................

Quote:

---

I still don't see what I said that was out of line to begin with. If you could point that out to me I would be most appreciative.

---

I have no idea...............I just tried to explain the UK/EU angle, whereas this is a USA/Canada situation.

What I will say is that the underlying issue is the question of authority granted to our law enforcers throughout the World.



:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by brokencrow
First, that Romm dude should get on the straight path and quit "diddling" while he's on the net.

Second, he should've cleared his internet cache and customs wouldn't have discovered child porn sites in Romm's Internet history list in the first place.

Third, can you spell K-n-o-p-p-i-x?

---

Hey Crow, I'm gonna dissect your post in case some less experienced members read it and make some false assumptions based on it. No worries, aight?

First - If he should "quit 'diddling'" or not is irrelevant to the point of this thread. But you're right.

Second - By clearing his cache, I know what you meant to say was "Clear the cache, delete partial and old files, and wipe/overwrite the unused disk space on all partitions".
(However, even that won't stop EnCase ((or any other forensic tool worth its salt)), if you have data in the slack space of the disk sectors...it may take a WHOLE lot of work to put together enough evidence from the slack to reproduce one image...but it's worth it, for the conviction.)

Third - Amen brother. The best way to leave no hard-disk-evidence is to not use the hard-disk. :evilgrin:

For those users who think that by "clearing the cache" all evidence of your (mis-)deeds is removed, you are sorely mistaken. CIS has nothing on a good forensic computer analyst with the right tools.

maybe we should all use RAMs instead of hdd...

scenario:
oh god hes coming to search my laptop!!! (flip open the case, take that laptop out unplug the batt put the batt in and put the laptop back to the case) whew close call!

Quote:

---

have no doubt of your vast legal knowledge

---

Ha! ... Yes, I have studied some areas of law, but am no expert. The law is fluid, ever changing, and way too complex for many attorneys never mind the average person. I was merely trying to ( maybe badly ) explain for the average person areas which I saw from what was posted, without going into specifics, trying to give a basic understanding of areas which could be looked at.
I try not to delve too far into court cases such as this, because I don't want to give defense attorneys ideas for further appeals.

Quote:

---

I still don't see what I said that was out of line to begin with. If you could point that out to me I would be most appreciative.

---

perhaps it was the wine, or what was behind the scene, in the AO point assignment

Quote:

---

He made an extremely uneducated comment

---

Nuff said on that, lets leave it behind us now.

After reading the suppled .pdf of the court's decision, it is clear that the author of the article misconstrued entirely what this case meant. It looked at some other areas as well, but I will stick with what seems to be the main topic here: can border agents search your laptop.

This case did not address whether border agents could search a laptop, but rather whether the defendant should have been subject to the border search laws because he was never admitted into the other country, but turned away.

The intrusiveness of the search was not addressed as it was not raised initially .....

Quote:

---

If defense or prosecution does not bring out a topic of discussion during arguments in the initial proceedings, the court may not consider any arguments relating, but only those brought out initially.

---

Seems this occurred here.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Hmmmm,

Quote:

---

This case did not address whether border agents could search a laptop, but rather whether the defendant should have been subject to the border search laws because he was never admitted into the other country, but turned away.

---

That is a weird one, surely you search persons before you let them in? ..............You only turn them away once you have made a decision not to admit them, and this decision could well be based on what was found during a search?

If there is a single crime, such as smuggling "illegal substances" (not drugs, weapons or explosives) it is generally the case that the person is returned to their point of egress for trial, assuming a similar degree of criminality exists there.

It is a grey area that seems to be covered by some "gentleman's agreements"?

Otherwise you could be tried and imprisoned for attempting to import illegal substances...........then sent home for more of the same on exportation charges?

Just a thought
:)

I remember what it was like travelling to Detroit via Windsor, either the Ambassador Bridge or the Tunnel, and back then all you needed was your Driver's liscense, but the thing I am trying to say, was as I remember it, when going to the States, you were passed through, unless of course they had prior information, the same was true for American visitors coming to Windsor.

The only time I saw Canada Customs (now Revenue and Excise) inspect vehicles was for returnees, on the lookout for tax evasion stuff, bringing goods back across without paying duties.(you made sure to get the new tires installed on the American side and drove through some mud before coming home type stuff):p

But now with the rules having been changed, people are being asked to open luggage prior to entry, wether your returning or visiting.The Homeland Security rules have made this happen.

They asked this gentleman to open his laptop, he could have refused,which with today's ever present neurosis's, would have lebeled him with something to hide? so open it or turn around and go back...He gave his consent, and through their search they discovered other problems, and rightly refused him entry in to Canada and promptly told the US authorities. He had the choice, but because of his "stupidity" had left incriminating evidence on his PC, shite happens...

For every 10 people who cross the border they don't stop, some are going to get through, he just happened to be number 11 that day.

Do I think it's right..no, but what is the option for the traveller...turn around and go home? stuck between a rock and a hard place, besides if he hadn't done anything illegal, nothing would have happened, a lot of the border inspections are done at random or (they deny it, but racial profiling does happen) through intelligence, someday's they get lucky and other day's the guy smuggling 20 cartons of smokes gets through, or magic mushrooms... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by IKnowNot

After reading the suppled .pdf of the court's decision, it is clear that the author of the article misconstrued entirely what this case meant. It looked at some other areas as well, but I will

---

That was the point that I was trying to make from the beginning.

I would have stated that I was not the only person who uses the computer and anything found on that computer even though it is in my possession might have not been veiwed by me. Anyways whos to say that eveidence wasnt placed there by AKA Hackers. The true issue is that there are sick sites up there with child porn on it. Attack the porn site. (Take away the alcohal from the drunk and he will sober up). So yes this guy is sick and he should be shot. But any evidence found by any country should not be submissable in a United States court without proper posedure (warrent), just because hes a x con doesnt constitute probable cause. They did the right thing by sending him back, but going into such a deap scan to find anything they can on this guy is Bull. Hey I did drugs as a kid but does that make me a drug addict now? Hell no (for those of you who said yes).


But hear what I have to say now if you didnt retain what I wrote above. If you dont want to get in trouble for something illegal then dont do it... We all get caught in the end.