Well, they can't seize them for an indefinite period of time.

They just can't. They may think they can... but they can't. There's no case that says they have that sort of power and there certainly is this nasty little thing called the 5th Amendment which sort of prevents takings without compensation.

I suppose they're making one of those callous choices that no one is going to spend the requisite cash and time and energy to recover a laptop that's only worth a couple thousand dollars.

As far as "outrage," I don't need to express anything of the sort. I know that if the feds are saying that they can hold my property for an indefinite period of time, that they're just plain wrong and that hopefully, the ACLU will prevail.

The privacy issue, however, is another thing. As a libertarian, there are certain things I wish were true. As someone who knows a thing or two about rights and powers vis a vis the Constitution, I know that there are some things the government has carte blanche to do. Searches and seizures of contraband at the border are exactly such things.

It just now occurs to me that if the laptop contains contraband, it rightfully can be seized as property used in the commission of a crime. That could be the only Constitutional thing Homeland Security could have possibly meant by their statement.

Considering the tone of the article, it doesn't seem unlikely that the author might have slanted a few facts or, himself, suffered from a lack of understanding of Constitutional Law.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!