Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., has introduced legislation forbidding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from searches of travelers’ computer hard drives without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Tripso has reported before on heavy-handed DHS searches and confiscation. It is nice to see that someone in the Senate is paying attention to this unfettered federal intrusion into our freedom.
An article in the Huffington Post outlined Senator Feingold’s bill, S. 3612, the Travelers’ Privacy Protection Act of 2008 and his comments as he introduces the legislation.
“Most Americans would be shocked to learn that upon their return to the U.S. from traveling abroad, the government could demand the password to their laptop, hold it for as long as it wants, pore over their documents, emails, and photographs, and examine which websites they visited – all without any suggestion of wrong-doing,” Feingold said. “Focusing our limited law enforcement resources on law-abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion does not make us any safer and is a gross violation of privacy. This bill will bring the government’s practices at the border back in line with the reasonable expectations of law-abiding Americans.”
Until a new law is passed by Congress, Ned Levi, writing in Tripso, notes, “The Fourth Amendment may prohibit ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ and require ‘probable cause,’ but not at the border, according to the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals, which has ruled that Customs and Border Protection agents could conduct random, warrantless searches and seizures of laptops without probable cause.”
The new bill, if enacted, would require DHS agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching electronic equipment carried by U.S. citizens. It would also ban ethnic or racial profiling, allow owners to be present while their computer is being examined and limit the time DHS can hold anyone’s computer or PDA.
Tripso welcomes this bill that was introduced at the end of September and co-sponsored by Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Washington’s Maria Cantwell. It is also supported by the ACLU and Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE), which represents the global business travel industry.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I’d give this bill a “snowball’s chance in Saudia Arabia.” No matter how egregious or dubious a “security” practice might be, nearly all members of Congress are so terrified of being branded “soft on terrorism” that they’ll either vote against it or (more likely) ensure that it never gets to the point where any member has to go on record about it. That’s how the Bushies bullied Congress into rubber-stamping the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and torture: anyone who voted against it was not merely “soft on terrorism” but “aiding the enemy” by denying the Executive the authority to “protect America.” Notwithstanding the McCain-Palin campaign slogan, Russell Feingold is possibly the only genuine maverick in Congress. He cast the only Senate vote against the Patriot Act because he believed it needed serious public debate rather than rapid rubber-stamping.
The only possibility is that an Obama administration might (and the key word is might) reconsider this policy, and be more respectful of civil liberties overall than the Emperor Bush. But there’s no way to be certain. We can be certain that a McCain administration would probably continue or even expand the arbitrary search and seizure policy, insisting that it’s vital to protecting America from terrorists. And no member of Congress would dare to argue against protecting America from terrorists.
I was not pleased with their ability to seize a laptop, but I was not aware that “the government could demand the password to their laptop”. What frickin’ country is this anyway? I am so in favor of this bill. I’m writing my letter now to my congresscritter to support it.
I see HAPGOOD has found another blogsite to hack with his leftist blatherings.
Get TrueCrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org). Free, Open Source. One can create a hidden volume within an encrypted volume. Then put some “sensitive” files in the outer volume, to be given up if need be. Give them the password to the outer volume if they ask. There is no way to prove the existence of the inner volume. I suppose any terrorist worth 2¢ knows this . . .
Having said that, I’d like to see Senator Feingold’s bill pass. They should omit the ban on profiling, however. I’d prefer they skip searching my grandmother (especially since she’s deceased) and concentrate more on young middle eastern males, though certainly not exclusively so.
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmud Burke)
Well folks evil is prevailing in the TSA checkpoint at an airport near you.
We take our civil liberties for granted and the current band of liars, cheat & thieves running the show have figured out that for the most part we don’t exercise these rights so therefore we won’t miss them. Those of us who care and are aware of the Tyranny of the Federal Government unfortunately are a relatively small minority.
One of our Founding Fathers said it best – “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
It was true then and it’s true now. Ponder that quote as you have your basic liberties trampled everytime you pass through a TSA checkpoint.
@Dave S. : Agreed on the part on “. It would also ban ethnic or racial profiling”.
This may very well be the bills fatal flaw. I am for REASONABLE profiling.
As you suggest, young middle eastern males shouldn’t be exclusively profiled, but they should be given extra scrutiny, “fair” or not, it is reasonable during the period we are in. An alternative is to do what the Israelis do, interview everyone.
May I also suggest, that was added due to the liberal beliefs of Senator Feingold. WADR, If the bill was just focused on one single issue, the searches, then this might be passed. The apparent inability to craft bills to focus on narrow subjects that BOTH sides agree with, and inserting pet projects, happens on both sides of the aisle, I am just speculating on the specific motivation in this case. It is not a slam or insult to say that the Senator’s political beliefs influenced what was included. Too bad too. It is absurd, because under the current system (yet again) there are no built in checks and balances. Rules are fine, as long as accountability exists. The current border search protocols require no responsibility, nor accountability.