Customs and Border Patrol agents can grab your laptop, BlackBerry, or external hard drive without needing so much as a reason, but a new bill introduced last week to Congress would at least put some limits on how border searches could be done.

“I was deeply concerned to learn about the lack of protections individuals’ have when their electronic equipment is randomly seized,” said Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), who introduced the bill. “With the passage of the Border Search Accountability Act of 2008, Americans will be able to travel with more peace of mind knowing that their data will be further protected and that there are stringent accountability measures in place for safeguarding their personal information.”

Note what her bill will not do—make searches more difficult. Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that border searches of electronic devices (even those without any probably cause) did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable search and seizure clause. Judges noted that precedent already allows searches of 1) briefcases and luggage, 2) a purse, wallet, or pocket, 3) papers found in pockets, and 4) pictures, films, and other graphic material. So why not laptops?

While such searches would not appear to be legal within the country, courts have long recognized the government’s right to “protect its territorial integrity” by controlling the material passing across its borders.

Sanchez’s bill would bring more routine to the search process. The bill requires the government to draft additional rules regarding information security, the number of days a device can be retained, receipts that must be issued when devices are taken, ways to report abuses, and it requires the completion of both a privacy impact study and a civil liberties impact study. Travelers would also have the explicit right to watch as the search is conducted.

Sanchez also wants data about the searches, which would have to be turned over to Congress once per quarter. Specifically, she wants to know how many searches are being done, where they take place, and the race and nationality of those being searched.

The Department of Homeland Security actually issued search rules over the summer; while they were the first rules made public on the process, which had started to look quite ad-hoc, they still came in for criticism from groups like the Association of Corporate Travel Executives. ACTE, which doesn’t like have executive laptops pinched whenever someone travels overseas, complained in early August that devices could basically be kept indefinitely, the data could be shared with foreign governments, and no data destruction procedures were spelled out.

Coming so close to the end of this Congressional session, Sanchez’s bill is unlikely to see action this year. It currently sits in the House Committee on Homeland Security, where it will likely expire when Congress adjourns.

Given the tremendous uncertainty the electronic search process creates for travelers, 40 civil liberties groups asked Congress back in May to hold hearings on the issue; so far, that has yet to happen, but Ars has spoken with several frequent travelers who already that precautions with sensitive corporate and personal data before going on international trips.

Perhaps the laptop search program will turn out to be as much of a boon for online data repositories as it will for the federal government.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080916-new-bill-wants-tighter-rules-for-laptop-border-searches.html

By Amos Maki (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Memphis Police Director Larry Godwin and the city of Memphis have filed a lawsuit to learn who operates a blog harshly critical of Godwin and his department.

The lawsuit asks AOL to produce all information related to the identity of an e-mail address linked to MPD Enforcer 2.0, a blog popular with police officers that has been extremely critical of police leadership at 201 Poplar.

“In what could be a landmark case of privacy and the 1st Amendment,” the anonymous bloggers write on the site, “Godwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States.

“Some members of the Enforcer 2.0 have contacted their attorneys and we are in the process of filing a lawsuit against Larry and the City of Memphis. What’s wrong Larry? The truth hurt?”

It wasn’t clear if the lawsuit is aimed at shutting down the site or if it’s part of an effort to stop leaks that might affect investigations.

Many of the documents in the case, filed in Chancery Court on July 10, have been sealed by Chancellor Kenny Armstrong. Police officials would not discuss the action, citing pending litigation.

Whatever the reason, Internet and free-speech advocates said they had serious problems with the city’s actions.

“You can complain about the government, and you should be able to do that without fear of retaliation or threatening actions on the part of the people in these positions,” said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based watchdog group. “I guess they’ve kind of annoyed them at some level, but you really don’t want to see law enforcement or government resources spent in this way.”

AOL has been ordered to turn over similar records in the past.

In 2001, Japanese company Nam Tai filed a complaint in California state court against unknown Web posters claiming they committed libel and violated the state’s unfair business practices statute.

Nam Tai was able to obtain the e-mail address of one of the posters and then obtained a subpoena from a Virginia state court to AOL seeking the name behind the e-mail address.

AOL filed a motion to have the order quashed, but lost that bid in trial court and the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee said they will be watching the case closely and that anonymous speech is essential to the free flow of ideas in a democracy.

“We are quite interested in preserving the anonymity of the bloggers,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “Anonymous speech has long been protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The bloggers, who operate under the name of Dirk Diggler — the name of the porn star in “Boogie Nights” — say their site provides an important service to officers and citizens.

“This is another attempt at disrupting an outlet for officers to gather and complain about the administration,” they said on the site.

“Further, this allows us unrestricted communication with the citizens of Memphis. The citizens should be made aware of the scandals that rock the administration and shudder the rocky foundation in which they operate today.”

The bloggers also said city attorneys earlier this year wrote a threatening letter on city letterhead to a company that produced T-shirts for the bloggers.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/22/police-director-sues-find-identity-blogger-critica/

Requiring essay responses, the ACU Presidential Questionnaire consisted of ten questions, including the following:

• What is your mission statement for America and the three most important goals you intend to achieve as President?
• Please describe your philosophy of what it means to be a conservative President.
• What are the most important governing principles that you would rely upon as the framework of your presidency?
• Describe your view of the meaning of American sovereignty.

You can view the full details by clicking ‘continue’.

The ACU Presidential Questionnaire was submitted to the following Republican and Democratic candidates:

Republicans	Democrats
John Cox Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee Duncan Hunter John McCain Ron Paul Mitt Romney Tom Tancredo Fred Thompson	Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Chris Dodd John Edwards Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Barack Obama Bill Richardson

Responses were received from Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson.  Rudy Giuliani did not respond to the ACU Presidential Questionnaire; however, William E. Simon, Policy Director of the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Campaign did provide a letter to ACU outlining Mr. Giuliani’s positions on certain issues.

“The questions we posed in our questionnaire were considerably different from the standard a candidate would expect to encounter,” said Bill Lauderback, Executive Vice President of the American Conservative Union. “Rather than asking “yes/no” issue-oriented questions or offering multiple choice option responses, our questions were designed to allow the candidate to define and elaborate on his/her core values and principles, his/her decision making process and leadership skills which he/she will bring to the Presidency.”