I think examining the contents of a computer or other storage device by customs, without any reasonable basis or suspicion, is wrong. Do they have any right or reason to rifle through your dayplanner, look at the contents of your wallet? No. Data stored on the computer is no different.

Border control is there to account for the people and the objects, not the thoughts that cross over.

Val

and there's the crux, Val.
Is content on a harddisk made up of objects or thoughts...

Had this person had a stack of prints of child porn in his suitcase (which are routinely searched) it would have been objects and noone would object to it being used as evidence against him.
But now that it's on his computer harddisk it's suddenly thoughts and can't be used.

I must say I'm of two minds here. IF they have the right to open your suitcase and look through it without a warrant they should have the same right with harddisks.
BUT I don't think they should have the right to open my suitcase without suspicion that there's something illegal in there and are able to get a warrant using the same rules needed to get a warrant to search my home.

My basic assumption is that there is no such thing as privacy when it comes to government action. This has been broadened by the fear of terrorism. You want some privacy, encrypt your files.

What it comes down to is that "they" will do whatever the hell they want unless "we" stop them.

I think the concept of "in plain sight" that police (in the USA anyway) have to abide by should/must be applied to border/airline screening as well. That is, if in the course of normal, routine actions an illegal substance/object is seen it is legal for the authority to proceed with criminal action. Doper leaves his bag of weed sitting on passenger seat of car, gets pulled over for running a light - cop sees it, busted. If the weed was in the glove box and he exhibited no signs of intoxication or recent use (no smell), cop has no legal right to search the glove box.

By your example, if fellow traveling through a border or airline checkpoint has a stack of pictures readily visible when the bag is opened for routine check - busted. Two counts - the porn, and being terminally stupid. The next dirty old man has his porn stashed in some folder in his computer's filesystem. Not obvious, not in plain sight, and customs/TSA has no business prying around in the computer once they see that it turns on and does not explode.

My 3 cents.

Val

I don't have anything to hide..

It is that kind of mentality what makes us "sheep" ready for the butchery.

I do have things to hide. That's why I wear clothing.
What if I want to hide pictures of my family? Bank statements? An important project that I want to patent? My score of minesweeper?.
Yeah, yeah, do not take anything of these in a laptop through the airport. But do we need to be
so controlled and inconvenienced just so security authorities can show us the great job they're doing catching all those laptops full with pictures with porn, if any.
Since when porn if vital for the security of the border. You don't think you'll find a plot to blow a nuclear plant in one of those machine, don't you?
What would be next, confiscate all the "thumb drives"? Cdrom? Portable MP3 players? Books? Writing material? napkins?

I cannot believe for a moment that any person who has a morality that includes respect for the right to an individual to live as he or she sees fit as long as that individual is not harming others, and, said person has a strong sense of ethical behavior can think for even a second that there is really an argument here.

There can be no question whatsoever that prying into someones laptop without just cause is a terrible invasion of privacy. A laptop is an extension of your thoughts, your private dealings, your mail, hell, your home. Invasion is invasion, and trying to dress it up and parade it as anything else tells me with absolute certainty that you are part of the problem we face in the world today.

That problem is the dilution of rational thought where morality and individual rights are concerned. It entails the blurring of the line between the rights of the individual vs the supposed rights of the many. If only that were true. But in fact, it's just a form of hysteria. If there was a chance in hell that this sort of behavior would far outweigh the damage it does, then there might be a reason to discuss it as though it could be "for the good of mankind".. Historically this simply is not the case. Never does the ends justifiy the means when you are damaging many innocent individuals in the hopes of saving other individuals at some future time.

Society in general has lost its moral compass. We allow laws to be passed which damage the many for a false sense of security. In reality, it's all just leading to a police state.

By arguing these types of issues as though they have merit one has already bought in to the lie. They have no merit. Prying in to my laptop is a gross injustice, unless you have legitimate, documented reason to believe that doing so will yield proof of a threat to you or society at large.

As soon as they can get the technology in place it will be your thoughts.