Are airport laptop searches an invasion of privacy?
A U.S. judge has dismissed challenges levied at authorities over the terms imposed on laptop searches at airports.
This week, Brooklyn, New York-based judge Robert Korman dismissed a lawsuit designed to challenge U.S. governmental policy over laptop and mobile phone searches at the border. A case brought forward by U.S.-French dual citizen and graduate Pascal Abidor -- represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) -- said that seizures of such belongings violated constitutional rights to free speech and invades privacy.
While traveling on a train in 2010, Islamic studies graduate student Abidor was taken aside by U.S. officials. Having recently visited Lebanon and Jordan for his academic work, the student's laptop was taken after an initial search showed images of U.S designated "foreign terrorist organizations" Hamas and Hezbollah.
Abidor said the images were part of his research, and the government did not return his laptop for 11 days.
The complaint, however, was cast out by the federal judge, who cited previous rulings stating authorities do not need to show "reasonable suspicion" before scrutinizing passenger computers and mobile devices.
Korman said he agreed with previous rulings that no suspicion is necessary for basic searches at the border, but full forensic searches and confiscation required a different standard. The U.S. judge commented:
"If suspicionless forensic computer searches at the border threaten to become the norm, then some threshold showing of reasonable suspicion should be required."
Due to a lack of staff and resources, full forensic searches are only limited to "suspicious" passengers, and the chance of being scrutinized is less than five in a million -- and so the student's claims lacked merit and do not prove injury or an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
However, ACLU lawyer Catherine Crump said in a statement that such searches are "part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight," and the decision is advocating unregulated, intrusive searches without evidence of criminality.
Via: Skift
This post was originally published on Smartplanet.com