Yes in this country. 19 USC 1305 is entitled "Immoral articles; importation prohibited". You might wish to read it. It specifically bans the importation of any "article which is obscene or immoral". This even includes advertisements of foreign lotteries for some reason.

I never said pornography was prohibited. Simply that bestiality and child porn are considered obscene and/or immoral and thus their importation is prohibited under the statute I cited above.

Nope. Talking about the US. CBP is Customs and Border Protection. It was formed about two years ago by a merger of the Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture inspection functions, along with the Border Patrol.

There are several reasons why people are not always allowed to witness the search of their bags, vehicles, etc. during a CBP inspection. The first is that often they get in the way. Another is for officer safety, especially if the travelers outnumber the officers involved. A third is that there are some inspection methods and technology that are simply not for public knowledge. Finally, it is sometimes just an established policy after something happens.

Now, I can't see how any of those apply to this laptop search. My guess is the guy was either just copping an attitude, or he thought he was a computer genius and didn't want to give away his super-top-secret computer search techniques.

Primarily to see if you visit this kind of website

How subversive! Good way to become one of the 80,000-plus names on the terrorist watch list.

Any correlation between post counts and getting blacklisted by los federales? Or is it an inverse relationship?

Interesting. Without researching it to see if it's ever been tested, I'd say it is unconstitutional on its face, or at least unconstitutional as-applied if it is extended to anything other than obscenity.

Wow. I can't keep up with all the changes that have been made in the name of homeland security. Thanks for the correct info.

Yes, I can see why he might not want to reveal his super-top-secret computer search techniques. Well, technique, since it appeared to be singular and appeared to entail: Click on "my computer", change the view from large icons to list, click on drive letters, click on various directories until bored.

It's all mind-bogglingly lame. The Linux partitions are not visible to Windows, so much of the drive wasn't even searchable by his super-top-secret computer search technique.

It has certainly been used many times as a basis for seizure and civil forfeiture. You should read the law...there's a whole lot of items which are specifically prohibited from importation. And that's just one statute. People don't realize just how complicated import laws can be -- after all, they have an entire title (19) of the US Code.

Statute is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=19&sec=1305

A quick search turned up two Supreme Court cases, both finding �1305 to be Constitutional. See US v 12-200 ft. Reels of Film (413 U.S. 123) from 1973 and US v Thirty-seven Photographs (402 U.S. 363) from 1971. These were both obscenity cases. I didn't turn up challenges to the other provisions in my cursory search.

SCOTUS case web links for the lazy: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/413/123.html and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/402/363.html

My pleasure. Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture merged into two agencies: CBP and ICE. Simple, eh?

The sad part is that the technique described above still manages to find child porn. Who said criminals were smart?

Agreed. I consider myself to be a rather computer-savvy person, but without either my tools or the owner's cooperation, I wouldn't have a chance of finding well-hidden files.

So does your computer require a password for access to Windows? And if so, I presume you were asked for it and gave it to him?

One thing that nobody has mentioned is the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations. If you are a government contractor, or you work in the science or engineering fields, or you have advanced cryptographic software on your machine, or even if you aren't or don't, you might have information that is outlawed for export on your machine -- look up the ITAR regulations -- and you could be in deep water if such information is discovered.

It doesn't require one. I treat Windows as inherently insecure and consider password protection of it pointless (against any intruder with any real knowledge). I assume that I would have had to provide any password if asked, just as I had to unlock my checked bag to let them search that.

The funny thing is that I had been considering just the night before whether to disable the Windows boot altogether and make it boot straight into Linux. I so wish I'd done that, because I've have loved to have seen what he'd have done with a Linux command line.

I'm only questioning a seizure based on an expressive work being, "immoral." If I want to bring in a non-obscene (by the Miller standard) pamphlet advocating, for example, premarital sex, it would be a First Amendment violation to preclude it.

As I said, obscenity-based seizures are not constitutionally problematic. I have a problem with the "immorality" provision. At best, it's impermissibly vague and, at worst, a substantive infringement of 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

Ah my friend. Windows can be made to be VERY secure. I'd like to avoid a religious debate on which OS is better, but since I detest the idea of some overweight (you didn't mention he was skinny, so I'm assuming he's average) and overzealous CBP inspector exercising a powertrip by fat fingering your machine, here you go:

Choose a password greater than 14 characters
Run Syskey in mode 2 for added protection -- essentially a double password, and choose one hard to remember. Do this and CBP will have an awfully hard (practically impossible) time getting into your machine unless you tell them your password.
The just to tick them off and wast their time, encrypt a bunch of random files with EFS -- they'll need your password to decrypt these, but they won't get your password unless you tell them...

See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...d_sec_xsst.asp for how to enable syskey.

Now technical issues aside, let's look at the legal aspects here:
What if he declined to tell his password? Could Customs detain him? What if his machine required smart card or token based logon -- and he didn't have the token?

Can Customs "dump" somebody's phone (i.e. look at all the dialed/received calls on it)?

Well, I've only ever seen the statute used for obscenity and foreign lottery materials (which are specifically precluded). Otherwise, I would tend to agree. Morality is different for different people and communities. Federal law must be clear and consistant.