Slashdot Mirror


Laptops Searched and Confiscated at U.S. Border

An anonymous reader writes, "According to an article in the New York Times, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives is asking the U.S. government for more detailed guidelines on when and why a laptop gets confiscated at the U.S. border, which, anecdotally, is happening more often. The story includes a report from a business traveler who had her laptop confiscated over a year ago and has yet to have it returned." According to the article, a knowledgeable lawyer said: "[Border guards] don't need probable cause to perform... searches under the current law. They can do it without suspicion or without really revealing their motivations." And an ACTE exective is quoted, "Potentially, this is going to have a real effect on how international business is conducted."

33 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. Required to enter your password? by sith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My laptop requires a password to wake from sleep or decrypt the contents of my home directory. Since this is seemingly not a search-warrant situation, am I in any way legally required to type / provide my password? What are they (legally at least) able to do if I refuse?

    1. Re:Required to enter your password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My laptop requires a password to wake from sleep or decrypt the contents of my home directory. Since this is seemingly not a search-warrant situation, am I in any way legally required to type / provide my password? What are they (legally at least) able to do if I refuse?

      If you are a US citizen I suppose the US criminal code and possibly anti terrorist legislation act apply. If you are not a US citizen they can pretty much do whatever they bloody well want with the worst case scenario being that you get dragged into a Learjet sporting a fake civil registration which flies you to some US allied country in the Middle East or one of those covert jails in E-Europe for 'harsh interrogation'.

    2. Re:Required to enter your password? by toddhisattva · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't need to enter a password or cooperate in any way.

      And possibly, you will be seen as having no need to enter the country.

      The way to get your laptop across the border is to pack it in cocaine.

  2. Re:Sounds like a job for... by failure-man · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes but, can Captain Encryption get me my computer back?
     
    Better yet, can Captain Encryption keep the G-men from stealing it in the first place?

  3. Globalization Demands Open Borders by BeBoxer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all the love that the US government and big corporations seem to have for 'free trade' and 'globalization', they don't seem interested in open borders. I wonder why not? It's OK for corporations to ship jobs around the world to wherever labor conditions are the most favorable to them. But if workers try to migrate to where the hiring conditions are better, they are demonized as 'illegals'. It's OK for corporations to buy supplies from any country, getting the best deal in the process. But if consumers try to buy products from other parts of the world, that's a no-no (witness Lik-Sang). True globalization demands open borders. Fire the border guards. Tear down the fences.

    Some will reply and tell me this is crazy. How it can never work. That somehow we just have to have walls. Why? And if walls are so good and necessary, would you support building them between the States? Why not?

    1. Re:Globalization Demands Open Borders by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True globalization demands open borders. Fire the border guards. Tear down the fences.

      Some will reply and tell me this is crazy. How it can never work. That somehow we just have to have walls. Why? And if walls are so good and necessary, would you support building them between the States? Why not?


      It is a bad idea. Borders are good for keeping your citizens safe from external problems, be they illegal aliens that your economy can't cope with, or unfair competition from foreign companies that don't follow the stringent labor and environmental regulations that companies in your own country are bound by.

      Keep the borders, and fix the laws so that corporations can't take advantage of different laws, tax rates, and labor rates in different countries so easily while the rest of us get shafted if we try to do the same.

      As for a wall between states in the US, that's not a bad idea. Let's build one around the northeast so their craziness doesn't spread, and another one around the southeast so their ineptitude doesn't spread. And most importantly, build one around Washington, DC while Congress is in session and don't let anyone out ever again.

  4. My Lack of Surprise by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Last week, an informal survey by the [Association of Corporate Travel Executives], which has about 2,500 members worldwide, indicated that almost 90 percent of its members were not aware that customs officials have the authority to scrutinize the contents of travelers' laptops and even confiscate laptops for a period of time, without giving a reason.
    Customs can scrutinize & confiscate almost anything that isn't a diplomat or under diplomatic seal.

    Don't like it, get the law changed.

    Otherwise, all they'll get is a policy change... which is the equivalent of a "I promise" but without any garauntee or accountability.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:My Lack of Surprise by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fly a plane into a building.

    2. Re:My Lack of Surprise by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I think this shows up is the simplicity of people who think that globalization in any way makes the nation-state obsolete. The fact that we cross national borders more often, in the context of globalization and everything that makes globalization possible, reinforces the jurisdiction of the nation-state over people. Globalization, as currently practiced, really relies on the modern state in order to function, and enhances the position of that state.

  5. Scary by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's getting so that I don't want to travel to the States any more. They're getting waay too uptight.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Scary by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've declined three employer-funded trips to business meetings and conferences in the USA in the past couple of years. The thought of having some jackbooted stormtroo^H^H^Homeland Security officer with a German shepherd on a leash screaming at me to produce my "PAPERS! PAPERS!" just turns me off. The USA just isn't a place I want to visit any more.

    2. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
      It's getting so that I don't want to travel to the States any more. They're getting waay too uptight.
      I agree that this is out of control, but there's one thing I can't figure out. What country are you from? Last time I checked, just about every other country on Earth was just as bad, if not worse at protecting people's rights. Where is this fictional country? Europe? Yeah right don't make me laugh. I've heard all sorts of stories about laws in various European countries that we Americans would see (rightfully) as appalling attacks on civil liberties. Just look at Oriana Fallaci, who (before she passed away earlier this year) was facing criminal charges in Italy for "defaming Islam", all because of 18 "blasphemous" statements she made in her book The Strength of Reason. Apparently, one such statement was calling Islam "a pool that never purifies".


      So don't get on your high horse and pretend that your country (whether it's in Europe or elsewhere) is any more respectful of freedom and individual rights than the U.S. is. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a country that's any more free than the U.S., but right now, there really isn't one. And believe me, as a U.S. citizen, the events of the past several years (Bush, the Patriot Act, etc) have made me seriously consider leaving the country. The problem is, there's nowhere else to go that's any better at the moment.

    3. Re:Scary by Dravik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I certainly hope this article doesn't figure into this. This is done by every customs department in every country. If you take a trip to the US you will run this risk when entering the US but you will also run this risk when you reenter wherever you came from.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    4. Re:Scary by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've linked to something that's from the Daily Mail, the British equivalent of FOX News. Heck, probably worse.

  6. Blah Registration by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Guess i wont be reading the rather potentially disturbing story.

    I wonder how long it will be before local police start stopping people at random to do searches of laptop/mp3/pda contents. Much as they do now for random drug/seatbelt/terrorism/etc searches.

    "its random so we arent violating anyones rights".. my ass.

    Time for total encryption of anything you carry. Too bad i cant encrypt my ipod, or PDA.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  7. What's supposed to happen and what does happen by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's supposed to happen and what does happen are two different things. What processes are in place to ensure that is what happens?

  8. confiscation without a reason is called . . . by rev_sanchez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    stealing. The US border guards are stealing computers. How about we make them stop stealing things?

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  9. How is this NOT Un-Constitutional??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did I miss something? IANAL, but the last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly prohibits search and seizure without probable cause. In fact, I just re-read it to make sure, and it doesn't say "except at border crossings."

    Can someone enlighten me as to how ANY U.S. court has seen fit to uphold random seizure of personal property without even a hint of probable cause? Does this only apply to non-U.S. citizens? (yes, I did RTFA, but it didn't mention anything about that).

  10. Re:Confiscated means Compromised by wrf3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's an issue of trust and I have no faith in the Bush administration or its agents.

    I have no faith in any administration or its agents. I wish the rest of the world would wise up to this. Government is not now, never has been, nor ever will be our friend.

  11. The logic of bureaucracy by gettingbraver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the paperwork isn't filled out, it didn't happen!

  12. Re:it isn't just the USA that does this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're just stalling. They're not interested in your laptop per se, more in your reaction to having your laptop studied.

  13. 5th Amendment by troll+-1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Article contradicts itself by first saying US Customs can confisicate without reason and then saying the a Federal Court ruled it needs at least "reasonable suspicion". I would have thought the latter to be correct according to the wording of the 5th Amendment that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, which is generally held to be at least reasonable suspicion.

  14. Re:Sounds like a job for... by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spot on. Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury, made the Coast Guard the cornerstone of his plan for collecting revenues. There's even an urban legend that the Coast Guard 'Cutters' (first boats commissioned by the U.S.) were to fight 'revenue cutters'.
    Because this was part of international commerce, it was outside the protection of domestic rights.
    Another example of this is how enemy combatants are typically not covered under domestic rights such as right to a lawyer, speedy trial, habeas corpus, etc. Somehow, this has been forgotten or ignored recently.

    (Of course, I'm sure /.groupthink will mod me for speaking truth, but then, what else is new?)

  15. Re:Friend coming back from Thailand talked about i by RajivSLK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They _are_ comfortable with emacs in a text window, right? That's what _I_ boot into :-)
     
    ::Pop quiz::
    If the customs officials have no clue what your computer is doing, their likely reaction would be to:

    A) Pat you on the back, apologize for wasting your time, and send you on your way.
    B) Put you in a holding cell while they spent hours attempting to figure out your notebook.

    How does appearing like you have something to hide help you at all? Best to make it boot into an innocuous windows partition.

  16. Re:L.A. Federal Judge Disagrees by Buran · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It does not matter if a federal judge disagrees. This has been settled decades ago by the supreme court.

    You mean, like how the right to abortion was decided decades ago by the supreme court and now there's all sorts of fussing that the law needs to be changed?

  17. great business model by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Since the government doesn't need warrants/probable cause/oversight anymore, it would be easy to set up a business to sell "confiscated" laptops second-hand. With no oversight, there is no need for record-keeping, no way to see if someone is abusing their power, etc. Just yell "You hate America!" at anyone who questions how you bought your new house. It's worked so far. The only people who believe in old-fashioned due process are apparently terrorist appeasers, if you believe the dominant Republicans and Fox News. Can anyone think of an argument FOR government oversight, warrants, and due process that would be considered persuasive in the current political environment? We seem to have given up altogether on the idea that government is dangerous to freedom.

    What happened to all the "conservatives"? Am I the only conservative who actually believes in limited government? That may be the most tangible benefit of a Democratic victory in an (any) election--the conservatives would be (ostensibly, if dishonestly) anti-government again. Right now we're stuck with the dichotomy that government-funded healthcare is creeping totalitarianism, but government torture is innocuous. Strange world we live in.

  18. Re:The REAL truth by chortick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. While most police forces are still subject to civilian control, Customs officials in the US and Canada increasingly do not operate transparently. In the absence of clear civilian control, they and all other police forces inevitably descend into corruption and abuse.

    Western police are not immune to this. "Our cops don't do that!"... BS. I don't know why we (westerners) think that we're inherently better human beings than say, Soviet Russian police. Nothing about us makes our societies better, it is our political and economic freedom that has made us better. Define power roles and remove the controls... the "Stanford Prison Experiment" could easily have been a prototype for Abu Ghraib.

    When you consider that Customs officials increasingly don't have to answer to anyone, and there is no longer any useful process of complaint or appeal, it is inevitable that they will abuse their power. After all, you could be a terrorist/communist/anarchist/whatever it was 150 years ago.

    As for customs guards, the fact that you're a business traveller, earn 10x what they do, and that this is the only context in which they will ever have power over you will surely cause them to abuse their authority. This is human nature.

  19. Re:L.A. Federal Judge Disagrees by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It does not matter if a federal judge disagrees. This has been settled decades ago by the supreme court.

    The Supreme Court also settled decades ago that people of African decent were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

    Fortunately, the opinions of the Court alter neither the text of the Constitution nor the nature of reality; they merely decide what degree of illiteracy and delusion the U.S. Government will operate under.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  20. Re:I work at the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All the extra paperwork sounds nice in theory, but if something gets misfiled, how can John Q Public get his computer back? I used to be supportive of the T.S.A. until they harassed me for no good reason, then trashed my car at the border. No apologies. Had to look for my passport and driver's license. Laptop dumped on the back floor. D.M.V. documents from the glove box ended up on the back floor. I spent an hour getting my car back together. I've traveled for over 10 years to 18-19 countries. Never treated so rudely. I went to the office to make a complaint and was patronized. Interviewed in the front lobby with agents passing by. Abolish the T.S.A.!

  21. You emphasized the wrong part by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    It does not apply only to US citizens, and it does not apply only within the borders of the US. The US government shall not do this to anyone, anywhere. Full stop. End of fucking discussion!

    Why the fuck is this so damn hard for everyone -- including federal judges -- to understand?!!!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  22. Re:Here's a Good Question by JerryP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your approach should be mandatory for any corporate or government laptop containing customer related data.

  23. Re:The REAL truth by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Western police are not immune to this. "Our cops don't do that!"... BS. I don't know why we (westerners) think that we're inherently better human beings than say, Soviet Russian police.

    IMHO, this is the principle driver behind these problems. The belief that "it can't happen here!" is what invariably leads to it happening due to the level of denial. It also contains copious helpings of "we are better than everyone else", another precursor to many social issues. It's like the 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq; many people simply do not believe that their own country is capable of doing such things so therefore the study must be wrong. If you ask me, all of this belongs on the same page as holocaust denial and religion. It's a complete failure to accept facts that go against your predisposed beliefs. Often the truth hurts.

  24. Re:The REAL truth by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if that 650,000 figure is correct, we, the United States of America, did not kill all those people. Most were killed by other Iraqis, by Syrians, by Lebanese, by Jordanians.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.