A reason you may not want to bring the laptop

Um, since when did airports become foreign soil? They're still part of the USA, and the Constitution is still in effect there (although you wouldn't know it sometimes).

With all due respect, airports are not like foreign embassies. And it's not just airports: the TSA and related agencies do the same things (that is, assume extra-constitutional powers with no legal basis for doing so) at ferry docks, train stations, even bus stations...what's next, the mall? Libraries? Your garage?

Caring about our fundamental constitutional rights doesn't make you a liberal or a conservative, left or right (at least it shouldn't). It means you're paying attention and using your noggin for more than a place to plug in your iPod.

There's an interesting coalition forming between traditional opponents from opposite ends of the political spectrum, called "Strange Bedfellows", the AccoutabilityNow PAC (Google it).

Personally, I think this is a good sign and is long overdue. I'm sure that even Rick Steves would approve.

No, when you're in the customs/immigration area you're not on US soil, and the US Constitution can't protect you because you haven't been admitted into the country yet. For decades customs/immigration has been allowed to randomly open any travelers baggage without any suspicion; these new laptop rule aren't really any kind of radically departure has been going for many years-even before 9/11.

Big Brother Is Watching You! Sheesh! The so-called "conservatives" strike again...

I'm not exactly a liberal (in the US sense of the word), but this seems to pretty clearly violate the 4th Amendment:

"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."

Problem is, when you're at the "border" (even if that border is inside an airport that is inside the continental US) one is technically not on US soil, thus you have almost no rights until you exit the airport.

Not to quibble, but a person at the border in an airport is indeed on US soil and fully subject to US law, including the protections of the Constitution. (So, if you assault a border guard, you wil be prosecuted successfully because, the crime being on US soil, the US has criminal jurisdiction. Moreover, if the police respond to your assault by arresting and questioning you, they will need to read you the Miranda rights first.) However, the Supreme Court has long held that border searches, as long as they are not extremely personally intrusive--such as body cavity searches--are permissible under the Fourth Amendment as reasonable for the protection of national security in our borders.

Since there seems little hope that the current Supreme Court will find border laptop searches unreasonable, those wanting greater control over government snooping have shifted their efforts to Congress to pass limiting legislation. I think the Senate held hearings on the issue last month.

Actually, Michael is correct. While an airport is on U.S. soil, until immigration has granted you permission to enter, you are literally in no man's land.

If a foreign national comes to the U.S. and is denied entry, he will either be kept in the transit area and placed on the next flight to his home country, or will be taken to a detention facility. He has still not been granted access.

A U.S. citizen can't be denied access but can be held, questioned and searched.

I had to learn all the intricate rules when I trained to be a tour director. We spent half a day at the airport with customs and immigration to understand exactly what the procedure was and how to get through it efficiently.

The real prolem is this: If they asked to see your laptop at the airport prior to admitting you the country, they would have the right to do so.

However, what they are doing is confiscating the laptop, admitting you to the country, and then feel is as if they have the right to share the information on the laptop with anyone they wish. That's where the privacy issue comes in especially since you are not being charged with a crime or even feel you have committed a crime.

Sadly, our courts have swung to the right and will do anything the current administration wants them to.

All the government has to do is yell "Al Queda" and everyone shakes in fear. They then keep quiet as our Constitution is slowly destroyed.

It get's really interesting when you are going through US customs in a Canadian airport. In the Calgary airport, once you go through customs you are technically on US soil (even though it isn't the consulate) so the US officials can search your laptop, bags, etc. even though you are literally not on any US soil at all.

We had to throw out a taco we bought and were going to eat in the waiting lounge because it contained beef and it was during the Canadian imported beef ban in the US. If it had been a chicken taco, we would have been fine! We asked the custom official if he was going to eat it on his lunch break, and his reaction was somewhere between humor and contempt. :-)

Actually, I think the truth is a little in between the two. If you land at a country's airport, then you are on their sovereign soil, and are subject to the laws and protections of that country. However, you can be on a foreign country's soil, and under their jurisdiction, but not yet admitted to that country. Tens of thousands of Mexicans live in the United States illegally....they've not been officially admitted, but while they are on US soil, they enjoy the same constitutional protections as any other resident.

A few years ago when I went through U.S. Immigration at the Montreal International Airport (now called Trudeau) I was shocked to see a huge banner proclaiming "Welcome to the United States of America". I was still in Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, in the country of Canada and I was being welcomed to the USA! I was more shocked when a woman who was quietly arguing with a security person about something in her luggage was approached by a uniformed soldier with a gun (rifle? I know nothing about weapons) cradled under his arm! However, this past spring, going through the new premises for US Immigration at the same airport, I was happy to see that the welcoming banner no longer exists. If I was indeed already on U.S. territory while still in a Canadian airport, I was not being rudely reminded of it.

Norma, they have that same setup at the airport in Toronto as well. Which begs the question if someone were to assault a US immigration officer or get caught using counterfeit passport at Montreal or Toronto, have they violated US law or Canadian Law????

Canadian law.

Norm is correct. It's a very tricky subject.

To lessen lines at immigration and customs in the U.S., Canada permitted the U.S. to set up I & C at major Canadian airports so that flights into the U.S. from Canada could "park" at domestic gates.

Technically, the U.S. officials have no law enforcement jurisdiction in Canada. However, once you passed into the waiting area you were "cleared" to enter the U.S. and that area could be considered an extension of U.S. soil.

Having a banner welcoming you the U.S. is just tacky.

Now the question came up about illegal aliens. If you cross into the U.S. without being cleared by immigration you are breaking the law. You are on U.S. soil and protected by U.S. law. It's only at "Ports of Entry" where the "no man's land" clarification comes in.

In some areas of the U.S./Canadian border there aren't guards but telephone booths where you supposed to call in to let them know you are entering the country. Sort of on the honor system.

One news station set up a camera to see who stopped during one day. No one did.

On the other hand, if you get into trouble overseas, go to your embassy and if admitted, the local police can't touch you. Of course you may have to spend the rest of your life there, but you won't go to jail.

Sorry Frank...pre-clearance is just that....it's not an extension of U-S soil. Any crime committed inside the secure waiting area would be dealt with by Canadian authorities under Canadian law. There is no "legal no-mans' land."

Norm, I think you misread me or perhaps I didn't state it cearly enough

I first said that U.S. officals have no law enforcement power in Canada.

Perhaps I should have stated that the area I referred to as an extension of U.S. soil was for immigration purposes only. Canadian police would still be called if a crime was committed.

It strikes me as odd that the American administration in recent years has had so much trouble understanding what, for centuries, has been the accepted international practise...that as soon as you set foot on another country's soil, you are subject to their laws and regulations. This idea that there is a "no-man's land" before you clear U-S customs and immigration seems to have emerged since the 9-11 attacks.....yet it doesn't appear to be the case at land or sea border crossings....a contradiction no one in the U-S government has been able to explain. On June 30th, in a split decision, a U-S Federal Court ruled that Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was detained while transferring planes to Canada and sent to Syria to be tortured under interrogation, had no right to claim constitutional guarantees in the U-S because he wasn't technically admitted to the U-S. Yet the American government apparently had the right to levy its "extraordinary rendition" rules against him....hard to figure how you can claim no legal jurisdiction, yet claim legal jurisdiction! The dissenting judge of the three said it was nothing more than a "legal fiction" that Arar was not on American soil, and warned it would give officials the right to violate constitutional rights with impunity....ANYONE's constitutional rights. The case is to be appealed to a full hearing of the Federal court and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court. Incidentally, the Federal court ruling also noted it didn't feel it should adjudicate Arar's lawsuit because that would interfere with "sensitive matters of foreign policy and national security," perhaps a more telling comment on why they ruled as they did.

The US isn't the only place where this kind of stuff happens: http://tinyurl.com/6dflel

Michael...if you examine this case closely, you'll find that it is completely different. You'll notice that, when stopped at CDG airport, while not granted admission to France, he was legally on French soil, and had the rights and priviledges of their laws granted to him. He was allowed to retain legal counsel and use the French court system to plead his case....ultimately successfully. You'll also notice he was insane. Hardly the same as being abducted while in transit through the U-S and bundled off to a third country for "interrogation."

I would consider being forced to live at CDG for 10+ years a form of torture, and probably lead to his insanity. Had he had full rights under the French legal system he would have been given proper housing and the full benefits of the French social service system. But obviously this is an isolated incident, but it's a good example of how crazy government bureaucracy can be anywhere in the world.

Michael....you're right, it shows how crazy governments can be. But methinks you're grasping at straws here. Social benefits, by law, are only available to citizens and legal residents....and he was neither until his court case was over. As a visitor to the U-S, I wouldn't expect Medicaid or Social Security coverage, but I would expect to be subject to the same rules as everyone else in the U-S. Yes, I, too, have gone crazy at CDG once or twice...but at least I didn't knight myself! :) BTW....I think the Belgian government's actions in this episode were particularly reprehensible.

Frank, as reported in the media here (Australia), this 'law' only became apparent when business men began protesting, and someone used the FOI to dig out the ruling. Laptops, cameras, phones, ipods, documents can all be confiscated, all without any apparent suspicious intent. Another quibble...as an 'alien', I would also be required to notify the American Embassy at least three days before my expected departure, should I be planning to visit your country.

I checked out the site, but it has expired. You can read the article on the Washington Post web site. Go to.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103030.html

Back in 1992, when I trained to be a tour director, I had to learn about all of these rules which were on the books at that time.

Of course, we weren't as digital and laptops, cellphones, ipods, etc were either very rare or non-existent. You were allowed entry or you weren't. You had belongings confiscated or you were allowed to keep things. Nothing was taken "temporarily."

In those days they were more concerned with keeping banned items out of the country and made sure we knew what most were so we could warn our passengers. There was no talk of terrorism or even that type of danger to the U.S.

Today, I think it's more about the current administration wanting to know more about people than the constitution allowed. But remember, there is a precedent.....remember Nixon.

And afterall, Teddy Kennedy was on the no-fly list for awhile. The reason: He's a democrat and everyone knows they are a threat to the neo-conservative republicans.

Anything you bring accross the border whether at a land port, sea port or air port is subject to inspection and can be levied duty or confiscated. Officers aren't going to search or confiscate every laptop. There has been a lot of case law built up over 200 years (nothing to do with the courts swing to the right) to establish that border crossing isn't under the 4th amd. even without probable cause.

Laptops are a new issue and I expect we'll see some interesting case law coming soon. While the customs officials clearly are within their rights to search anything, based on their judgement, and confiscate anything they believe to be illegal, there is still plenty of room for argument about how long a laptop can be held (if not being held for evidence), who has access to the information on the laptop, how it can be shared and what information can be kept after the laptop is returned. If your laptop is taken the onus is on you to prove you have nothing illegal.

I expect the answer for laptops that didn't contain illegal information will be that all files have to be discarded by the government. For laptops that do contain terror or child porno information, the laptop will probably be kept as evidence then forfeited like tools of drug trafficing.

I'm not sure what I would do if asked for my password so a computer owned by my company could be searched. I would probably call my IT people and let them guide me.

I have no problem with the government searching me or anything I have upon entering the country. That's understandable.

what I have a problem with is with them confiscating items and then sharing anything they find with anyone they please--including non-government entities.

Brad brought something up that jolted me. He stated that it was on us to prove we have nothing illegal on it. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" I thought it was always up to the government to have to prove we were guilty.

I fear the far right court led by Judge Alito will find in favor of the government. He's already stated that the Constitution affords us no right to privacy whatsover.

Frank...thanks for the clarification. It's nice to see we've managed to move beyond "you are literally in no man's land." As for your qualifications, you may recall that the Fourth Amendment protects agains "unreasonable" searches and seizures (not "illegal,") and that people have a "reasonable" expectation of privacy." The U.S. Supreme Court has states countless times that this requires a balance between legitimate government interests and individual expectations of privacy. Since the highest duty of a government is to protect its borders, international convention and American precedents dating back to 1886 suggest that seaching luggage with no cause does not violate the "reasonable" expectation of privacy, therefore that is not considered an "unreasonable" search or seizure. Since any contraband goods could quickly be moved out of the jurisdiction after entry, the 1886 ruling stated it's not practicable to secure a warrant. A 1923 SCOTUS decision says "national self-protection reasonably requires one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in." As for the laptop issue, which started all this, I would hope a court would rule that distribution of the computer's material would be illegal if there was nothing illegal on it. I would conclude my contributions to this debate by suggesting that the protection of my person, under the U.S. Constitution, would be available to me as soon as I cross into American airspace.

The proof part comes in when they say, "Will you enter your password so I can search your computer?" If I say, "No", they take the computer and hand it over to people who know how to search it. If I say, "Yes", I'm violating company policy by allowing unauthorized access to the computer.

If I don't allow them to inspect my computer, they can assume I have a reason (other than principle) for not showing them and take it. That's essentially where I have to prove I'm not doing something wrong.

If it was my computer(I don't pack mine), I would just show it to them. I'm not transporting anything illegal. The biggest thing I would be worried about is something I didn't know was there, but that's a stretch.

Frank,

If you were correct about the "no-man's law" at borders, how come TSA regulations are allowed? We all know that TSA is just in the US.Rules are different in different countries.

The TSA does it's thing outside of the immigration/customs hall. You don't have to let the TSA search you or your belongs, and they don't have to let you on a plane. It's a catch 22.

As Michael stated, the only area known as "no-mans' land" is from the time you step off a plane that departed from a non-U.S. airport to the time you clear immigration. International flights don't go to any gate but to specific ones designated for international flights. (In some smaller airports, that same gate may be used for domestic flights but the passengers are not "guided" towards immigration but directly into the terminal.)

The rest of the airport is U.S. soil and you have the same rights there (supposedly) as you do anywhere else in the country.

TSA's job is to prevent you from brigning anything on board that may be detrimental to the operation of that flight or a danger to the public. The TSA rules apply to all passengers regardless of where their flight is going. TSA can ask me questions regarding my belongings, who packed it, etc. etc. but cannot ask me questions regarding the purpose of my trip, who I am seeing, or anything else that has no connection to the flight.

Immigration and Customs, upon entering the country, can ask you anything they want and even strip search you if they feel you may be hiding something. They can confiscate any item they feel is questionable and you have the right to file a claim against it.

What bothers me about the laptop rule is not so much them looking at it, but them claiminig they have the right to show it and its contents to anyone they wish--including people outside the government.

I can't believe we still persist in believing that the land between the airport gate and customs and immigration is "no mans' land." That is simply not true, people! You are on whatever soil of the country you have landed in. If immigration choses not to let you in, then fine. But can I beat someone to death before I clear immigration....can I snort cocaine while waiting in line? Of course not. I'd be whisked off to an American jail and tried under American laws. The myth of no-mans land is one created by the adminitration to try to justify illegal tactics against individuals...I think we'll have to wait for a Supreme Court challenge to settle this one. As for laptops....it's just like anything else you bring into a country....inspectors can demand to see what's inside.

Perhaps the term "no-mans land" is a bit strong. But the fact remains when you are in the immigration/customs areas one does not have the same rights as you have a few yards away, when waiting for a cab at the taxi stand. A customs agent has the absolute right to go through my luggage, for any reason. A police officer controlling traffic outside the terminal does not.

Norm, I don't know what the law is in Canada, but in the U.S., if you decided to snort cocaine while waiting in line for immigration, you would be pulled aside and taken in for questioning.

It is then up to the immigration officials to do with you as they wish. They can arrest you, admit you into the country, and take you to jail because you are attempting to enter the U.S. with an illegal substance. You would then come under U.S. law.

Or, they can put you on a plane back to where you came from and never admit you again. It's their choice. You would have no right to an attorney nor any chance to appeal. YOu'd be gone.

That's the difference. You come under U.S. law in this "no-man's land" but you are not protected by U.S. law in the area.

A recent case was a British freelance journalist who forgot to register as a journalist and get the proper journalists visa (There is one.) She was held at the airport, taken to a detention center, and then the next day put on a plane back to London. No calls. No rights.

In the U.S., when arrested you have the right to speak with an attorney and have the right to appear before a judge.

That's the difference.

Frank...it has nothing to do with U.S. laws versus Canadian laws....it's international convention. You say you can be arrested...fine, then American law must be operating there in this supposed legal "no-man's land." Or they can refuse to admit you and ship you back to where you came from. Those are the laws of the United States applied on American soil! They can turn you back on a whim at any border crossing...not just at an airport.

I'm not saying you don't come under U.S. law, what I'm saying is you're not PROTECTED by U.S. law in that area. That's the difference.

As Michael said, If I'm asked a question by Customs in this "gray area" (since no one likes no-mans land), I have to answer or I can be held indefinitely until I do. He can search every inch of my belongings and me as well. The U.S. Constitution does not protect me from this search and possible seizure.

However, once I'm past this "gray area," a police officer can come up to me and demand to search my suitcase. Unless he has due probable cause that I have committed a felony, I can refuse and there's nothing he can do. The Constitution now protects me from illegal search and seizure.

So, let me rephrase it to make you happy Norm...yes, you are on U.S. soil and come under U.S. law but you don't have the same rights under U.S. law that you would have anywhere else in the country.

And if you disagree with that Norm, remember, I'm an American who had to be trained for my job to understand these laws.

Wow. It's not an issue of 'soil'. It's an issue of pre-stated right to search. When on Airport property, you have given de-facto permission to search your bag at any time (read the small print on your ticket). Your laptop is an extension of your bag. It takes a long time to search a laptop. There has been no legal breach -- it's just really inconvenient.

In the US it is an exception to the 4th amendment under the title of "border-search exception". Basically it allows custom officers to search people/property entering the country without a warrant. There is something like this in every country.

The only reason this is news is that the US is they are making it public that items can be confiscated.
If this makes you scared don't travel in Europe, almost every European country has a country and have been duplicating drives and other digital items since the 90s.

The point about no-man's land isn't about whether you are on US soil or not. It's just that you aren't legally "in" the country until you clear customs and immigration.

If immigration chooses not to admit you to the country, you can't leave the airport and must return to where you came from at your own expense. I recall a Canadian teacher/author who wasn't admitted because he once advocated drug use. Another was Amy Winehouse who wasn't admitted to the country because of her drug abuse.

They wouldn't do that to a US citizen, we always have a right to enter the country. I suppose you could be admitted and arrested if there was a warrant for your arrest or you were smuggling something illegal. I see stories pretty regularly of someone wanted on a murder or child molestation charges being arrested at the border. I imagine they also pick up others but they aren't newsworthy.

We don't have is a right to enter the country without our stuff being searched, levied or confiscated. I've heard many more stories of people clearing customs with stuff that could have been confiscated than I've heard stories of people having something confiscated that should have been allowed in.

TSA is a seperate animal. They're only function is to clear people and their baggage to board planes. Their authority is limited to what we can and can't carry on and what can and can't be checked.

Actually, if a country elects to not grant a traveler entry into their country, the airline that brought you there is financially responsible to return you from where you came from.