[throwawaystale]

He's saying he was targeted because he's known to disapprove of the Trump administration? Please. If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016.

A better question would be why someone technically knowledgeable would be carrying a laptop through airline security at all. As soon as it's out of your hands, you have to assume it's been blown, security-wise. Far better to just buy a burner Chromebook at your destination.

[geofft]

Taking a laptop through airport security as a carry-on doesn't involve letting it out of your hands. (I assume they do not hire hobbits to hide inside the X-ray machine and implant hardware on your motherboard.)

[throwawaystale]

Let's just say I have a lot or respect for the possibilities I'm aware of, together with a general sense that there's a lot that I don't know.

In any case, just because you usually get your laptop handed right back, it doesn't follow that you always will. If it matters to you, buy that burner.

[geofft]

Even so:

1. I can expect that there's a chance that my laptop will be taken from me (and perhaps returned modified or perhaps taken permanently) while still not being okay with that. It's one thing to expect a right to be violated; it's another thing to give up.

2. It's not unreasonable to travel with a laptop while expecting a small chance that it's taken, in which case you'll buy a new one and restore from backup, instead of buying a burner every time.

[Marsymars]

Seems easier to buy a "burner" at home though, and then it's indefinitely reusable.

[throwawaystale]

1. Indeed, I'm only talking about is, not ought. Please do complain. Leave Trump out, though. Nothing he can do about it, and if he seriously tried, he'd wake up with a horse's head in his bed.

2. If you truly believe your laptop is clean and encryption sufficiently uncrackable, go ahead. I don't think I'm that smart, myself.

[zeveb]

> If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016.

I would have been seriously surprised if CBP cared about who donated to Democratic candidates — but then, the IRS under Mr. Obama did attack Republican groups, with very few negative consequences for the culprits, as did the Milwaukee DA. I really hope that bad precedent has not led to further bad behaviour. The rule of law is important, no matter who you are, and abusing the coercive power of the State for political ends moves us one step closer to the unthinkable.

[hopler]

The IRS conspiracy theory was debunked by Trump's Treasury Department. wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

[zeveb]

That page doesn't say that: regarding the September 2017 Treasury Department investigation, it states 'The 115 page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature.'

Which doesn't, I think, directly disagree with what I wrote.

Notably, the page also indicates that in October 2017 President Trump's administration admitted the previous administration's wrongdoing and settled the ongoing cases. Of course, it's in their interest to admit that Mr. Obama's administration had done wrong regardless.