Re: [privacy] Warrentless Border Laptop Searches Upheld by U.S Court

["Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>]

-- "Dennis Henderson" <hendomatic () gmail com> wrote:

> Who needs a warrant when the perp agrees to the search?

That's beside the point, I think. And what do you think would have
happened had he refused the search?

Did you actually _read_ the courts decision?

> "They asked to search his laptop, and Romm agreed."
>
> Planning any Canada Trips Ferg?

I've filled up several passports in my travels, but the answer to
your specific question is "What should it matter?"

Yes, this guy "had it coming" and probably deserved extra scrutiny
(from whatever perbvious criminla offense that triggered it), but
as I pointed out, I personally think this sets a bad precedent and
I would personally prefer courtesy the presumption of innocence,
unless there is _reasonable_ cause to assume otherwise.

I mean, that _is_ one of the basic tenents of U.S. law, right?

The point here is one of an excerise in thought. If the erosion of
the basic premise in the expectation in the presumption of innocence
and a reasonable right to privacy in one's persona effects are central
to the basic concepts of justice, liberty, and "The American Way",
this should certainly bother you.

If it doesn't, then we have bigger problems to worry about than
I thought.

- ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy