Feds seize all secrets on laptop
It's pretty obvious that we as a society are now made up of two groups. There are those who have moved their lives into the digital realm, and those who haven't.
I would like to introduce you to someone in the latter category. His name is Edward Korman, and he is a federal judge in New York state. He had a case involving a U.S. citizen, a Ph.D. student at McGill University in Montreal, who had his computer confiscated while returning to the States. The judge ruled, sweepingly, that yes, the federal government had a right to confiscate laptops at the border without probable cause.
In other words: You are traveling overseas with your laptop, tablet or smartphone. As you re-enter the United States, a federal official, for any reason or none, can take it away from you and look through it, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Here's what I have on my laptop. Years of email. Private conversations from close friends about personal matters, some of them tragic, heart-wrenching and life-changing, and similar messages from my husband. There are thousands of family photos, medical information about me and my family, business plans that affect my family's current and future livelihood.
Something else is there as well. What's on my laptop is a reflection of my mind — my most elated moments and deepest thoughts. It's me.
Either you live in a world in which this extension of your very consciousness — and your constant access to it — is an inextricable part of your life, or you don't. You either appreciate that a laptop is a costly and delicate instrument you'd just as soon not be cavalierly tossed around by a TSA employee, or you do not. And you recoil at the thought of strangers pawing through that information on a whim, with trivial legal oversight, or you do not.
It was odd — there's surprisingly little talk about the ruling online. (It came down on New Year's Eve afternoon.) The more you read, the weirder the rules are. The so-called “border exemption” extends 100 miles inland from the border. That includes the population of the Eastern Seaboard, Miami, Houston, the West Coast and Chicago.
I wanted to find a smart legal mind who'd considered the issue. I finally found someone who had. He came up with a simple encapsulation to prevent this sort of intrusion into our private lives for no reason. It went like this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
That's the Fourth Amendment, of course. The writer was James Madison, with help from a few friends.
Judge Korman, I am quite sure, isn't the sort to carry his life around in his laptop. The ironic thing about his ruling is that while initially I thought it encapsulated a division between people who live in the past (the judge) and the future (me and, I assume, you), but it's obvious this issue was well-debated by some smart people a very long time ago.
Email Kim Komando at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Two men shot in Uniontown bar
- State police cite ‘Breaking Amish’ star
- Lowly job likely awaits former Pittsburgh police chief after prison
- Shareholder vote causes ATI to review executive pay packages
- Cole outduels Mets rookie, carries Pirates to victory
- Pirates’ McCutchen laughs off pay stub leak
- Trooper fatally shoots burglary suspect inside Somerset Twp. grocery store
- Feds want to seize cash, property from suspects in drug bust
- Midway man dies in 2-vehicle accident in Washington County
- Steelers offensive line targeting injury-free performance as key
- Westmoreland used car dealers indicted in fraud