Slashdot points us to the news that the ACLU is looking to challenge Homeland Security's policies that it has pretty free reign in searching your laptop at the border. Now, to date, the courts have said that this is perfectly legal, so it's not clear what is "new" that the ACLU hopes to prove. However, last year, after revealing that the new administration still stood by these border computer searches, it also revealed some data on laptop searches, suggesting they are quite rare -- but do still happen. However, the ACLU is seeking people whose laptops were searched, but that looks like a pretty small number of people. While I agree that these searches seem quite questionable for a variety of reasons, I just don't see this lawsuit being effective.

We've been seeing all sorts of odd issues in the courtroom as the court system comes to grips with modern technology like mobile phones and the internet, which introduces some new challenges. However, this one is really strange. Michael Scott points us to a story of a trial where the defendant appealed because the jury was allowed to use the prosecutor's laptop to review evidence without supervision, leading to questions of whether or not the jury was able to view other material that had not been entered as evidence in the case. The case itself involved a fight at a gas station, and the evidence on the laptop was the surveillance camera video taken of the fight. In an odd exchange, the prosecutor said he was fine with having the jury look over the laptop, he admits it's actually his son's laptop and probably didn't have anything else on it, other than his son's political science notes. For that reason, the appeal didn't get far, since the original court and the prosecutor had established on the record that there was nothing else related to the case on the laptop, but it still makes you wonder why the jury was allowed to use the prosecutor's laptop without supervision. Why not get another laptop? Also odd, is that I don't quite understand what the prosecutor means when he says he can't just take the CD with the video out of his laptop:

Your Honor, the CD is in my laptop. If they want to watch it, I don't have any problem with the CD they can't obviously watch anything without the CD. My concern if I take it out, shut down the computer I am not here there is no one to gather it back up. So I would suggest we leave it here in the event they want to look at it they come back and look at it.

Why couldn't they take the CD out and put it into another laptop?

There's been plenty of concern over the past few years with regards to Homeland Security's claims that it has the right to inspect the contents of your laptop at the border, even without any probable cause. While it may be well established that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply until you're actually in the country, that doesn't mean there aren't some serious questions raised. I, like many others, have no problem with border searches of actual physical containers and luggage at the border. That makes perfect sense, because it's physical goods that you're purposely trying to bring directly into the country. You packed them with the specific idea of bringing them into the country.

But stuff on your laptop is different in two very important ways:

1. You mostly store everything on your laptop. So, unlike a suitcase that you're bringing with you, it's the opposite. You might specifically choose what to exclude, but you don't really choose what to include.
2. The reason you bring the contents on your laptop over the border is because you're bringing your laptop over the border. If you wanted the content of your laptop to go over the border you'd just send it using the internet. There are no "border guards" on the internet itself, so content flows mostly freely across international boundaries. Thus if anyone wants to get certain content into a country via the internet, they're not doing it by entering that country through border control.

Thus, it makes little sense for border control to search the contents of your laptop other than if the gov't wants a random "free pass" at checking out some content about you. DHS' insistence that it needed the right to search laptops at the border made little sense, and some of our elected officials pushed out bills to curb such border searches, though none have passed.

Instead, the new head of DHS has "revised" the rules for laptop searches, but they're only slightly better in that the old rules were "anything goes," while the new rules are "we're still searching laptops, but we have a few rules." The main components of the new rules are that you're allowed to be present in the same room as your laptop, phone or device as it's being searched -- but not necessarily to see what border patrol is doing. Also, they can't keep your laptop for more than five days, which seems pretty damn long to me. Though, as some note, this basically means that you should make sure any encryption on your laptop takes more than five days to crack.

DHS boss Janet Napolitano's reasoning for the searches is hardly compelling:

"Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,"

Um... right, but, again, the contents of the a computer laptop can easily enter the United States via the internet with no border control process whatsoever. The whole claim that this has anything to do with screening materials entering the US is totally bogus.

On top of this, the other thing that's not at all clear is how far the "search" can go. With a growing number of "cloud" based services in use, many of which act as if they're local, can the border patrol search those as well? For example, I use Jungledisk, which gives me a virtual drive that shows up in my file system as if it were a local hard drive, even though it's hosted in some data center somewhere. It looks like a local drive... but it's not actually on my laptop. Would border patrol have the right to search that, even though the contents of that drive are not actually traveling across the border?

Mobile operators are increasingly looking to sell non-phone devices like laptops and netbooks with embedded or add-on wireless modems as a way to boost their subscriber figures and generate extra income. Typically, consumers buy the device at a discounted upfront cost, then get tied in to a long-term contract for monthly data service (2 years at $60 per month seems to be the norm in the US). If users quit paying their bills, in theory, they've gotten a laptop on the cheap, though of course they're still subject to the terms of the contract, and damage to their credit, and so on. But Ericsson, which makes a lot of the embedded modems, has announced some new technology it's calling a "kill pill" that allows mobile operators to remotely lock a laptop by sending a signal to it over their network. The company says it's ideal if a data user quits paying their bills, but it's not hard to imagine mobile operators coming up with more nefarious uses for the device -- like shutting a machine down if a user closes their account, even if they've fulfilled their contract.

A while back, we noted that some professors at my school, Georgetown, were joining the trend of banning laptops in classrooms, pointing out that it was probably a futile attempt to force students to pay attention -- distracted, disinterested students have been and always will be a fact of life. However, one professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder has decided to actually educate her students about why using laptops in classes is a bad choice. Diane Sieber noted which students used laptops the most and, after their test, informed them that they had done 11 percent worse than analog-only students. The number of laptop users dropped and their scores went up. While Professor Sieber could have just as easily banned laptops, by treating her students like capable adults, she has produced a win-win.

As was widely expected following earlier statements from politicians such as Russ Feingold, legislation has now been introduced that would curb Homeland Security's ability to randomly search laptops at the border, instead, requiring them to have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity before they can search or copy a hard drive. This would be a huge step forward in terms of reasonable levels of privacy at the border. While defenders of the random search program claim that it's necessary, they give little proof. You can tell because their arguments could equally be applied to searching a random person on the street as well, as they just give vague platitudes about protecting the country from harm. Yet our country has privacy rights and probable cause for a very good reason. It's nice to actually see some politicians standing up to make sure that Homeland Security live up to those ideals.

Having bought my fair share of laptops over the years, I've noticed that the packaging has gotten smaller. I remember years ago buying a laptop and receiving a huge box with the actual laptop suspended in a styrofoam suspension system. More recently, I've seen laptops coming in much smaller boxes. However, Wal-Mart and HP have apparently decided to try ditching most of the packaging altogether, and letting you walk out with your new laptop in a messenger bag, rather than a box. Yes, there are still boxes from when the machines are shipped from HP to Wal-Mart, but the company can now fit 3 laptops to a box, significantly reducing packaging and making life easier on customers in the long run.

We recently wrote about how TSA-approved vendor, Verified Identity Pass, had lost a laptop containing all sorts of unencrypted data on people who had applied to be a part of the TSA's "fast pass" Clear program (letting you skip the long security lines for a $100/year). While the laptop was eventually found (in the same place it was lost), the company insists that no data on the laptop was compromised, and has sent out emails to applicants for Clear. But, it appears that at least something is amiss as David Weinberger received one of the emails despite never having applied for the program. So apparently they're just informing people at random now. Or someone else applied in Weinberger's name. Makes you feel very secure, doesn't it?

More than five years ago, we first discussed whether or not it made sense to take a laptop with you on vacation. Many people do so, and say that it's actually quite useful, because it allows them to stay caught up with work with just a little bit of effort. The end result is that when they get back to work, they're not overwhelmed with everything they missed. Now, however, a psychologist in the UK insists that taking a laptop on vacation is "stupid" and can break up your family. Seems a bit extreme. Having done vacations both with and without my laptop, I'd say that it actually depends quite a bit on the person, the job and the vacation (well, and the other family members). Mike Elgan, over at Computerworld does an excellent job shredding the psychologist's faulty logic:

Clearly he's not talking about attention itself, but diverting attention using a computer. Cooper's clear assumption is that work is "bad" and that leisure is "good," that technology (a laptop) is "bad" and non-technology (a book) is "good."

Cooper also makes a host of other assumptions. For starters, he assumes that you're disconnected from your own family all year, and need to "commune again with your family, connect with your children." So that's his advice? Become alienated from your own family, then "commune" with them for only two weeks a year? Why does he assume alienation in the first place?

Cooper assumes that you're some nine-to-fiver who doesn't do creative work. As an opinion columnist, good ideas can strike me anytime, anywhere. That's true for a lot of different kinds of people. For many, a laptop is merely a writing tool, and a source of information and inspiration.

An increasing number of digital nomads are traveling without taking time off. The laptop *enables* travel and time away with family rather than creating a problem while traveling.

It appears to me that Cooper is making a lot of assumptions, and using his credentials to give credibility to his anti-technology bias.

Indeed. There are both good things and bad things about taking laptops on vacation, but it's a choice that each person should make for themselves -- and if it makes sense for them, it's hardly "stupid."

Following the release of Homeland Security's policies for searching laptops at the border, where the rules are, effectively, "anything goes," DHS boss Michael Chertoff claimed that laptop searches were only done when the border guard had a "suspicion" and placed that individual in "secondary inspection." However, Senator Russ Feingold has now hit back, pointing out that the official DHS policies say absolutely nothing about there needing to be a suspicion or that laptop searches only happen on secondary inspection. If Chertoff were being honest, why wouldn't those things be in the official policy? And, if Chertoff insists that DHS will only do searches when there is a real suspicion, what's wrong with following the "probable cause" standard that it insists it should be allowed to ignore? It's nice to see Senator Feingold asking these questions.