Border agents would need to be able to say why they suspect an American has committed a crime before searching their laptops and smartphones and could not make copies of any information without a court order, if legislation introduced this week gains passage.

The so-calledTravelers' Privacy Protection Act (.pdf), introduced in the Senate by Senators Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) on Monday, would roll back portions of the current policy, which gives border agents the right to search or seize anyone's laptop as if it were just another piece of luggage.

“Most Americans would be shocked to learn that upon their return to the U.S. from traveling abroad, the government could demand the password to their laptop, hold it for as long as it wants, pore over their documents, e-mails, and photographs and examine which websites they visited – all without any suggestion of wrongdoing,” Feingold said.

Homeland Security recently published its official guidance (.pdf) to inspectors on its website, making it clear that inspectors don't need any reason at all to inspect a traveler's electronics.

Civil libertarians contend that a laptop is closer to an extension of a person's mind, rather than an analog of a luggage bag.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says the current practices at the border closely track what Feingold wants and that the procedures are legal and necessary to enforce the law.

Federal appeals court have largely backed the government's position that the border searches are reasonable.

Feingold's bill would require a court order to hold a laptop for longer than a day and restricts when the government can keep and share copies of a traveler's data.

But Chertoff opposes new rules, saying they would lead to crippling litigation, restrictive policies and eventually a terrorist attack.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington) introduced an identical bill in the House.

Given the little time left in this year's Congress, there's little chance the measure will become law before 2009, but its introduction makes it clear that the issue remains alive and will be revisited next year, regardless of who wins the presidency.

See Also: