Most folks reading this forum probably don't need to worry. Prior to the liberalization of crypto export rules, it was quite easy to have "controlled" software, for instance the domestic strength version of IE or PGP. But since about 2000 or so (can't remember for sure) all "commercially available" software has been legal for import/export to the US regardless of crypto strength.
It is still possible to have software or hardware designs on a laptop that are ITAR controlled, but if you're working on ITAR controlled non-commercially available products you should know it. Then what you do is get what's called a Carnet from Dept of Commerce, to allow export of this controlled material. Its a real pain to have to deal with the paperwork for this, or anything else to do with ITAR. I carried a Carnet for my notebook PC for a number of years, and can't ever remember encountering a Customs agent who seemed to know or care what it was for.
I'm not sure if other countries have changed their laws, for a number of years it was illegal to import too-strong crypto INTO France, for instance. But again, as long as you're a normal user of commercial products these days you should be OK.
It only took 10-15 years of the Internet being widely used for software downloads before the US Govt realized that prohibiting export of crypto software wasn't working, not to mention being of VERY dubious legality re: the first amendment. For example, the first edition of Bruce Schneir's canonical reference "Applied Cryptography" could be exported and sold worldwide, despite including all kinds of interesting crypto source code, but the CD containing the EXACT SAME CODE as in the book could only be included in US copies.
In many ways, ITAR as it was applied to computer software makes other US Customs/TSA policies look like the height of rationality.

Bob

PS: Sorry for the rant, but I had to work my thru this bureaucratic stupidity for way too long

Agreed. I'm all for upholding and enforcing rational laws rationaly. But would a Customs Inspector conducting an time-wasting, quota-filling investigation by simply fat fingering around Windows Explorer even know he was looking at blueprints for the new whiz-bang F999999 Super Turbo Charged hydroponic[sic ;)] Jet Engine versus the design for a windmill?

I'd love to try and explain the difference to one of these guys between "encoded" and "encrypted"...

You always need to remember, you have little to no rights going through customs. For me, I always declare what I have/buy. No longer do I buy any *legal* dvds outside of the US and bring them in. I watch them at the hotels and trash them.

As for the first question, not really. The laptop could be detained and sent to a forensic lab, but only with reasonable suspicion that there was contraband inside. That would be hard to have unless it was part of an ongoing investigation or other items were found in the luggage, for example.

And I'm not going to comment on the second question. It's not fully settled yet either way.

Wow. You seem to have a pretty low opinion of Customs Inspectors. I can assure you, however, that there are no quotas involved.

Actually not, just take this with a grain of salt for dramatic effect in an anonymous internet board ;) (and please please don't add my name to "the list" :D).

Seriously though, I do have problems with agents (most of my experience is with TSA) that decide to screen my laptop with the explosive wipe simply because the line is moving slow (i.e. nobody in line but me, so they have the time to do the explosive screening). Sounds to me like the inspection in this case happened simply because the CBP guy was bored and the OP was first through the line. I think THAT sucks.

If they asked first before operating my machine I would have less of a problem. When they open the lid it automatically powers on from hibernate mode, then when they shut it again it sometimes gets hosed. They could simply ask before trying to operate my machine that costs more than they make in a month (I have an expensive laptop...)

So am I reading you right -- absent any other "probably cause" type evidence, these situations result in a power struggle between the citizen and the MAN but absent the citizen relenquishing the password, ultimately walks WITH their property in the end?

Added-- I actually appreciate the work Customs and other LE folks do when they act with respect and restraint and not on powertrips. Now if only they'd be a bit more polite with the "turn ya cell phone off" directed at other passengers (mine is off..),

Oh, it's too late. I didn't put you on the no-fly...I did one better: mandatory body cavity searches. :p

Fair enough request. Personally, I would ask you if there's anything flaky about your laptop before turning it on.

I don't know if I'd say that categorically, but probably. Note that I said reasonable suspicion, which is a lower burden to meet than probable cause. I would think a criminal record for child porn would probably give reasonable suspicion, for example.

I'll take that as a compliment and thank you. As for the attitude and power trip thing...all I can say is...you've been around plenty of travelers, right? And you've seen the pushy attitudes they can often have? Imagine putting up with that 8 hours a day every day! But I agree. Like any other job, you'll find your share of disgruntled employees who enjoy making life miserable for others.

Mental note -- lots of chilli before returning to the US next time!
My mistake; I used those terms interchangable; Im no lawyer...
Would convicted felons even be allowed in to most other countries? I thought most countries blocked this.

But absent any real suspicion (as named above) I dont think that failure to reveal ones password should be construed as hiding something -- in some cases, it could be construed as the citizen simply being a PITA or acting on principle. I'm curious if there have been any test cases on this.

That is one way to ensure you get released by CBP as quickly as possible!

Depends on what the convictions were. But very likely not. I was more referring to returning US citizens.

I agree with your opinion. And I'm not aware of any test cases, but usually anything imaginable has happened at some point.

We only have "no rights" when we agree to give them up.

Many do not.As an attorney, you undoubtedly know that a CBP search at the "functional equivalent of a border" is almost unlimited, while a TSA search is not. In either case, one would want to summon a supervisor -- someone chime in about the levels of TSA officer supervision -- and be sure to explain everything and document everything, including names. You might want to generally tell them about attorney-client files. It would be good to have documentation of your assertions, such as business cards, bar cards, copies of law degree, etc.

Keep in mind that it may be malpractice not to install password protection on a laptop and individual files within the laptop, lest it be stolen. As for waiver, presuming no further disclosure (by government LEOs) occurs, how would an opposing party know of the putative waiver? I don't think that is much of a concern.Are you an actual frequent flyer?To be more precise, it is the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. ;)Because it is the "functional equivalent of a border." These are the agents of the sovereign you are talking about. At common law, the King could do no wrong. Modernly, you have various grievance procedures available in the very unlikely event of malice, or more common likelihood of incompetence. That is why it pays to be polite to these guys, and express your concerns in a manner that even dolts can understand.

Smart move on the backups. :cool: I questioned your nationality, now I'm doubting your claimed occupation. It is the "functional equivalent of a border." There are many cases discussing border searches.Don't forget CIS.It is certainly imprudent to use the same password for every single file. As posted upthread, you have to unlock things for inspection when requested. I'm not sure if one has to tell them a password, however, as opposed to supplying it. I would politely offer them that. "I find it hard to remember my various passwords, but my fingers type them automatically."

If they can't search your computer, they may decide to detain it instead. And the backlogs can be for months! :eek:

Yes, CBP can look at phone lists at the border.This is a more detailed explanation than my thoughts. I'm interested to hear of some CBP hesitancy on the phones. Nevertheless, if secrecy is important, don't bring it to a border search.Why? :confused:

The password? Where's the problem: just give the guest password. Most machines are multi-user machines, and many employees will not have the superuser' or administrator's password because the IT people are worried they could de-configure something.

I guess this situation could get you in real trouble when attempting to enter the US? (Assuming the guest password gets noticed in the first place.)

HTB.

P.S.: If I wanted to hide something, I could put it onto a 60 GB MP3 player in form of a couple of podcasts...

I believe there is a clear distinction between a border search by customs and a police or TSA search. A border search is unlimited - they can do virtually anything they want, and there isn't anything you can do about, regardless of your nationality.

As far as the TSA, or any law enforcement agency, you are not required to show them anything of a personal nature, including your computer files, papers, books, etc...the TSA part is cut and dry - those things are way outside the scope of their search. As for law enforcement, you are under no obligation to show them anything unless they produce a warrant to seize your property as evidence in a criminal proceeding. I have witnessed a jackboot thug (aka, Broward Sherrif Deputy) at the FLL checkpoint rifling through a passengers papers and reading their daytimer - that was clearly illegal. I wanted to say something to the passenger after he cleared the checkpoint, but I couldn't find him. I would have happily volunteered myself as a witness in a civil trial against the BSO.

Yes, but as the poster was not up-to-date with all the changes, I thought it best to use the more popularly understood old names (even if not a perfect substitute or wholly accurate). ;)

That said, you are correct. :D

Yeah, rather big oversight there. CIS took a bunch of employees and most of the bureaucracy!

You know...I've been thinking about this one since it came up yesterday. I'm not sure there is a suspicion standard that has to be met after all. I mean, how is a "locked" laptop any different from a locked suitcase or car trunk? The latter requires no suspicion whatsoever to detain until opened, if I recall correctly.

In my personal opinion, I think the problem stems from the fact that a phone list cannot possibly contain contraband. While it could provide actionable intelligence or possibly even evidence of past crimes, that was not the purpose of border search authority granted by Congress. Now that Customs folks also have Immigration authority, there are probably some valid reasons to look at phone lists (to verify stated purpose of travel, to make sure people aren't working here illegally, etc). But I'm not sure they'd fly with a US citizen.