Slashdot Mirror
The Failing Right of Laptop Privacy
davidwr writes "Wired has an interesting editorial on laptop searches and seizures. It raises some interesting issues, including employee rights against police searches in the workplace, routine vs. non-routine searches at ports of entry, and police use of unrelated data found in a database search. The article ends saying: 'Of course, there's a chance that the courts will not recognize the different scope of privacy interests at stake in computer searches, or will not be adept at crafting a rule that gives enough leeway and guidance to law enforcement, while also protecting privacy. At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.'"
The constitution certainly left the building back in the age of the new deal, possibly even as early as aliens and sedition.
When the day comes that the Constitution can no longer protect us in the information age, we have a Congress actually interested and willing to step in on behalf of the people.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
"we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.'"
Turn to congress for help in protecting our liberties? Haha, that's a good one. He must be new here.
That's what constitutional amendments are for. The constitution was ment to be a living document.
Naturally, laptops are just like anything else you store stuff in. Bags, anyone?!? Those can be searched too, you know...
http://lyricslist.com/
this isnt new, the police have been doing this for years with any kind of search, they trump up some reason for suspicion and then they fish around until they find something incriminating.
now they just have another tool.
...encryption.
TrueCrypt or PGPDisk or....
For myself, though, I must admit reading the last sentence of the summary more like this:
"At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will be screwed."
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
So keep your sensitive personal data on a server at home, where the protections against warrantless search and seizure are more clearly defined, and take with you on your laptop only what you need. Also there are all sorts of ways to remotely access your at-home data securely (DNS Forwarder/VPN, etc). That way your data is there when YOU need it and not sitting on your portable when you are crossing borders or sitting in your employer's office.
I have made it quite clear to contractors that their laptops will be subject to scrutiny prior to their being permitted to access our corporate LAN, as well there my be periodic spot-checks, especially if I suspect that a laptop might have become infected with something nasty.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Disk encryption. You can get TrueCrypt for free and encrypt a partition with a hidden partition inside. Keep it on a USB drive or external hard drive. See you in about five years after the NSA's supercomputer has been trying to decrypt it.
Of course, in the US today they'll probably just disappear you to GITMO while they work on it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I try my damnedest not to store ANY personal data on a computer not owned by me.
Sadly I was dumb when I jumped on the internet and have a lenghty footprint. I hate cached sites. They'll eventually be used against me.
As for the transportation of information, is a book a book or a collection of thoughts, ideas and information? Both.
We need to sort this out. My laptop/mp3/phone doesn't need to be reviewed/searched. You can inspect it for bombs and guns and radiation but beyond that, treat it like my zipper. What's inside is my business.
It doesn't matter if you're worried about a snooping government, script kiddies, nosy roommates or family members, or anybody else you don't want looking at your data. In this day and age, there really is no substitute for encryption, and there's also really no excuse to not be using it, given the amount of options (many of them free, as in speech and beer) available today. There's no reason to leave things like tax returns, sensitive work projects, etc. sitting out in the open.
One of the best things that I've done recently is to wipe and randomize a 40-gig partition on one of my drives and set up a 256-bit AES-encrypted ext3 filesystem. Unless I enter my lengthy passphrase, there is no way to mount the volume, much less look at its contents. Barring some unforseen weakness in AES, this is now data that nobody but me will ever see (unless I do something silly like forget to unmount it).
It is, in many ways, a brave new world, but people need to know that there are things they can do to protect themselves. This, of course, is not news to the Slashdot crowd, but it is something that the less-clueful public needs to hear about.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
or will not be adept at crafting a rule that gives enough leeway and guidance to law enforcement
A perfectly good non-electronic equivalent situation already exists: Personal diaries.
Would the readily-apparent evidence suffice to justify confiscating and reading someone's diary?
If not, then stay the hell away from my laptop.
My airport must really not like me. They not only said, "take your laptop out of its bag", they decided to say "turn it on". I did, flipped to FreeBSD, and as soon as they saw a command prompt they called in the dogs.
"In this day and age, there really is no substitute for encryption, and there's also really no excuse to not be using it, given the amount of options (many of them free, as in speech and beer) available today."
* Convenience.
* Performance.
Hands up, everyone, if you think that you trust COngress to create rules that are BETTER adapted for the information age, given that we're twenty years in, and they'be done jack so far...
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
"At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age."
Is it possible to mod the article +1 Funny?
I have a folder of every type of porn there is. It keeps 'em busy for quite a while!
I need to work on the kiddie porn, though. Not only does it keep the cops busy, but they make sure I'm around too....that's the only defect in my data hiding scheme. I'm working on it though. Oh yeah, my laptop is a little, well, sticky. So, after they see the porn, they leave the laptop alone.
I didn't see anyone suggest a second hard drive, encrypted and not carried in the computer case?
... that is if you don't immediately blame them for corrupting your data rather than admit it is encrypted...
If you only have a 'test drive' in the laptop, they can look at it all they want. They would still have to find and recognize the other drive as well as the boot USB drive, and then ask for encryption keys
Just a thought...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
wow, can she whine any more? Laptop is owned by her employer... It was bought for her use, NOT for her as a personal item. So now she gets her panties in a bunch when she realizes her employer has the right to do whatever they want with that computer. Guess what, it is theirs! Just because you scattered your useless garbage all over the HD doesn't make it yours. If you want privacy, buy a personal laptop, and then it becomes much, much harder for someone to take a look at it.
Here is someone who could easily afford their own computer. She should keep her private data on her own computer, not her work computer. What's so hard to understand about that?
Even if her own computer is too expensive for her, how much does a USB key cost these days? Combined with Firefox Portable and Thunderbird Portable (and others) this provides a simple and elegant solution.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Living document? Constitution? What are you trying to hide? You must be a terrorist if you are trying to hide behind the constitution.
If you had nothing to hide, you'd have no qualms about us inspecting your computers, listening on your phone calls, and being searched when we feel like it.
What are you trying to hide?
Fight Spammers!
At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.
... I'd not hold your breath. When they passed the DMCA and the Patriot Act I lost all hope of Congress ever being willing or able to legislate us out of this mess, given that they're most of the reason that we're in it.
Nonsense. The Constitution hasn't "failed us", it is our commitment to honoring its provisions that has wavered. The Constitution is just as relevant and meaningful now as it was two centuries ago. Furthermore, I would argue that it is more important than ever that we observe Constitutional law and hold our elected (and unelected!) officials accountable for their deviances from it.
So far as Congress crafting better rules for the Information Age is concerned
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Regardless of how one feels about the right to individual privacy in the workplace, surely we can all agree that the government conducting warrantless searches on a business' property without the consent of the business and without cause is a bad thing, right?
Yes, that's bad. Is it legal? Part of the fourth amendment warrent requirement was to keep the government from being used as a tool against your business competitors. The spirit of it is that reasonable suspicion will stand up to public scrutiny and must be presented before the public and passed by an impartial judge before police can turn your home or business upside down.
Whatever the case may be, the best idea is to protect yourself from everyone by doing the actual computing and data storage at home. With Linux, this is as trivial as ssh - X username@my_homebox_ip. This has the additional benefit of keeping all your private email in one archive without futher effort. Kontact works well though the crappy 60 kB/s upload most ISPs allow. I'd surf that way too, but I own my laptop, not my employer, and anyone without a warrent wanting to search it can kiss my ass.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
He references a Court Decision in regards to an employee's expectation of privacy on the employers computer in which the court determined that the hardware was owned by the employer and provided for the employees use to the employers benefit. That's right the company owned the computer and the employee used it to fulfill their day2day job duties. During an internal investigation of either a harasment or other issue, they discovered the emoployee had downloaded and saved porn on their computer and fired them.
Idiot sued (damn lawyers) and the courts ruled that the employee had no expectation of privacy on the computer becuase it was provided by the company for the companies benefit, not theirs.
Now where the article is flat wrong is the statement that the police could then just walk in and begin searching a companies computers without a warrant. BUZZ Flat wrong as the computers belong to the company and it has just as much protection under the search&seizure rules as you and me. Simply put, for the police to search a companies computers, they damn well better have a warrant or you'll have every corporation telling the Cheif and Judge you idiots, you're out of office because we can't trust you to protect us as you're supposed to. That's right the political fallout would kill any officers carreer and a judge that allowed any of that information to be admitted into a courtroom would be out the door and disbarred for the same reason.
Just out of curiosity, what rights does a non-American have when arriving at the border?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Would the readily-apparent evidence suffice to justify confiscating and reading someone's diary?
The airport case in question, you are screwed. The courts reasoned that searches at airports are routine, so just about anything goes. They should be ashamed of themselves. Until they come to their senses, I suggest you keep your diary, paper or electronic at home. The electronic one is easier to access, but you better move it around by ground transport.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Wow, I missed this one a few days back. It looks like the entire contents of your automobile, including your laptop, is fair game at the US Canada border.
Once again, leave your data at home and get to it though password protected and encrypted network access.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1) password strength is important (and used only 1 thing)
2) If they can HEAR you type it, they can guess it
3) They can install a keyloggers of many kinds
4) ENCRYPT YOUR SWAP FILE-- don't assume that memory is locked
5) Encrypted swap implementation has to properly handle the keys
6) You must be in control of the information, 3rd parties can give into probable cause
7) Using a rare filesystem has gotten people off in some cases
8) Beware of wireless keyboards
9) Some forms of security without government back doors may become a crime in the future. (I watched CSPAN in the late 90s it came up more than you think.)
10) Obstruction charges for not unlocking it for them will become common.
11) Flash RAM can't be securely wiped from what I've read
12) RAM leaves traces. The longer data stays the more "burned" in the traces are for that data.
13) Nobody is thinking about planting "evidence." Fine encrypt your drive, I can plant jpegs on a different mount point, browser cache, the company servers.
14) Nobody things about identity security when they are reasonably anonymous. User cje posted a bunch of "evidence" online from the library trying to hide his tracks...
15) IT guy can use access to do just about anything. Its probably been done but nobody caught them so it didn't make the news.
Feeling any safer?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
With TPM, I won't have the keys to at least one section of my own computer's hard drive. Trusted computing at its finest.
"What are you trying to hide?"
I could ask you the same.
"and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age"
Oh that's good, tell another one!
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Will never fail us. Its the people that are sworn to abide by it who will fail. ( and have )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My laptop computer was purchased by Stanford, but my whole life is stored on it. ...
In short, my computer is my most private possession. I have other things that are more dear, but no one item could tell you more about me than this machine.
In short: you're an idiot and are abusing company property to meet your own personal demands. The company didn't provide you with that laptop to store your own personal life on it, the idea behind it was actually to make you more mobile while still having the access and means to do your work. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're also one of those idiots who comes crying to his sysadmin when things suddenly don't work anymore and I, the sysadmin, gets to go through a lot of utter shit which simply shouldn't have been installed on that laptop in the first place! My team quickly found a simple remedy for all that though; we convinced the management board to get 1 brand of laptops and try to keep things decently alike. Company policy: synchronize your laptop with the company network before giving it to us to do maintenance. That process only syncs the company data. And we fix things by simply restoring a pre-made image. Then we sync the new laptop with the userprofile on the network and all is back to normal. Except the junk the user put on it ofcourse.
Sure we've had a few complaints from people just like you. To which our question has always been: "Why do you think you got that laptop? Answer: To keep the data which is currently on it, the company doesn't give a hoot about your kid photo's. We don't mind you store it on the laptop, but don't come crying to us that they're now gone. Has it ever occured to you that you could have gotten a laptop or computer of your own for that stuff?". Harsh? Yes. And in all honosty I do feel sorry for this particular employee. But if we're not harsh then what'll be next? "could you please look at my laptop, for some reason doomIII doesn't work and I need that to relief some stress in the weekends". Give me a fucking break....
So, to put it simple: when I, the sysadmin responsible for that laptop of yours, am allowed to speak on behalf of the company and grant the goverment access to that laptop then you really have nothing to complain about. Its not yours. In this context, technically speaking, its mine.
Every time you talk rights with a US citizen they bash the Europeans for having no constitution which protects them... Well how does that do any good when the US government simply circumvents the constitution? Isn't it illegal, with the DMCA and all, to circumvent stuff? :-)
According to AG Gonzales, Americans not only don't have a right to privacy with regards to their laptops, we don't even have a right to habeas corpus. See the FireHose for my (rejected) story submission.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
All the more reason to keep your personal data encrypted on a server (or two) that you control, and log everyone to whom you give a copy of any of it.
And all the more reason to pressure your state/local/Federal governments towards a Privacy Amendment to the (respective) Constitution. Which would reiterate the 4th Amendment (and implicit) rights to privacy in your "papers and effects". By requiring the government to protect your privacy by restricting copying/transmitting your personal data to only within the scope of the transaction into which you sent it, or authorized it's sending, unless explicitly authorized by you.
We can slow down the data invaders with tech. But we will never stop the cat & mouse game unless we outlaw their advantage in attacking us, protecting us from their unwarranted invasions of our essential privacy. Otherwise we've surrendered.
--
make install -not war
...high scores in videogames, most of them will do anything. Not all, but certainly most. Anything. They'll eat any restriction, any DRM,any spying,any cost,any expense, whatever, to feed and expand the addiction. And deny it instantly, worse than any alcoholic or crackhead.
It is the most vehemently denied truthiness on slashdot. That and that massive conditioning to violence from videogame addiction "doesn't do anything". Despite the advertising industry being proven, and despite decades of psych studies showing how easy it is to influence people, the meme is hour after hour after hour horrific violence is "harmless". Oh it's even "beneficial" I've heard that, too. Despite studies showing it actually changes brainwaves into a near hypnotic state, the level of denial is unreal.
That's geeks excuse. For non geeks, it is something else, professional or collegiate sports addiction, who knows, all those are variables, but people, generally speaking, will seize on any aspect of the state's "bread and circuses" gambit to avoid looking at their own weaknesses or societie's weaknesses, and insist that it is all "the other guy's fault" and go back to whatever helps them avoid reality. Even if highly politically motivated, most will seize on the utmost of simplistic theories, that you must support one or the other of the two major parties, because "it's all the other guy's fault". Witness the popularity of ultra statist Right and ultra statist Left talkshow hosts, or the major online political forums. Identical. Swap some names around, same rhetoric.. Listen to either, it is "the other guy's fault".
Humans have this blame transference thing down well. And the statist pigs understand this so well, that's why they have a variety of circuses to keep their herd animals split up into more manageable group size and completely amused.
Do you in any way notify your administratees that they should perhaps remove and/or copy over any irreplacable personal data they may have on their laptop before turning it in for maintenance? Even _technical_ people might possibly not think to do that. At least drop a line into the "request for maintenance" form that says in bold, capital letters "YOU WILL LOSE ALL THE DATA ON THE LAPTOP SO BACK UP ANY PERSONAL DATA TO A USB DRIVE FIRST."
What's the point of sitting around _feeling sorry_ for these employees when you could've _prevented_ it in the first place? Sitting around smugly saying "oh, I feel so sorry for the idiots" doesn't exactly appear sympathetic.
Contending that the contents of a company-owned laptop belong to the employee carrying it is nonsense. If you are using the company's computer, everything on it belongs to them. A company laptop can be searched by the company anytime, or by the police anytime the company permits it. If you don't like that, get your own.
I worked Desktop Support in an environment where we were forbidden to say or write the letters "PC" because they stood for "Personal Computer:" we were required to describe computers as workstations.
I opened my own business months before 'retiring' from the consulting firm, which forbade us from having any other company's information on our laptops. Before I did that, I bought my own laptop, moved all my personal and business information to it, and re-imaged the hard disk on the company laptop.
Sure enough, about a month later, they asked for my laptop to do a "shell upgrade." I was happy to turn it over...
You could tell that was written by a woman because she treats a laptop like a purse. She won't want to fight for her own protection either since she just pretends threats don't exist.
What Constitution? I wasn't aware that a world Constitution had been promulgated.
I presume that you are talking about the Constitution of some specific unnamed country.
In any case, it doesn't matter what it says in any legal document in any country of the world. Violations of civil liberties are always wrong, at all times and places. This is the only thing that needs to be understood.
Freedom, democracy and equality are non-negotiable.
A laptop purchased buy your employer is the property of your employer, not you. So if the government has a warrant(or reasonable cause) to search your employer's property they have the right to search your laptop(and they should have, or else every dodgy company in the world would keep all their financial records on laptops and make the government get hundreds of warrants to search it all). Don't keep private stuff on your company laptop!!! Buy your own, don't put work related stuff on it, then the feds need a warrant against you to search it.
Laptops at the border are a problem, but not because they're laptops. They're a problem because of all the "what if he/she is a terrorist" BS that we've allowed to give the government the rights to do whatever they want. They shouldn't be able to search your laptop not because it's a laptop, but because once they've determined that it's not a bomb and it's not contraband they shouldn't be able to search it without a warrant in the first place. There is no reasonable reason for the government to do a warrantless data search at the border. They can search for drugs, bombs, weapons, imported fresh fruit and meat, but data is not a border threat.
The database issue is a bit hairy, but it's more a problem with allowing centralized databases in the first place. The government obviously has reason to be suspicious of whatever company is holding the database(they are after all in theory privy to criminal activity even if it's only in the sense that they have the data), and therefor cannot trust them to export the data in question, so they need the whole database. The US constitution has so far allowed for the admission of evidence found during the execution of a search so long as it's reasonable to have looked there(ie, if you're looking for a stolen car you can't look through cabinets since a car can't fit there). The question, and legal defense, here is whether law enforcement had any legitimate reason to look at your records while investigating another crime, and this issue would be the same with a filing cabinet as with a database.
All these things are simple privacy issues which would apply whether technology were used or not, and as soon as we stop pretending that it's all complicated technology issues we don't have laws for, and as soon as we stop letting the government preted the same things, the sooner we'll have the problem solved.
A computer isn't really all that much different from a filing cabinet as far as searches go, if you couldn't search a filing cabinet under the same circumstances, you shouldn't be able to search the computer, end of story.
My laptop is dual booting and the Linux partitions are encrypted, while the Windows partition is plain text. The border guards can search all they like on Windows...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There is a new old trend to compile OSS applications with statically linked libraries, as a so called portable application, the way it used to be done on good old DOS, so that the application can run directly off a USB stick or CDROM. I use this method for personal schtuff - that which is inconvenient to access from my home server. The company machine has only company schtuff.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Keep all your actual, working data on a USB Key. For super-extra security, don't stick the USB key in your PC when it's hooked up to the Internet.
My laptop is really just a shell; it's got an OS, and a ton of music and games on it's HD, but not a single text file or anything personal. Even my browser history is shredded each time I close it. So if I loose my laptop/have it stolen/etc., I'm really just losing hardware and the time it takes to put my OS and music on a new one.
It's worked great for me - and allowed me to eek life out of otherwise dying laptops. When you use a USB key (and back it up on a 2nd key, as I do, every so often), you are protected against hardware failure. If your PC dies, you take your key, go elsewhere, and continue working.
Don't store data on your laptop if you take it anywhere out of your house. It's just good sense.
1 - Separate work and private laptops
I carry mine to work and don't plug it into the network
I don't use the work machine for any internet searches, I use my laptop through cell card
2 - Separate your data sets
Carry your sensitive data on something other than laptop
I carry mine on a CD, they can't call that a bomb
3 - If they want to search it...
Ask "What exactly are you looking for?" and write down the answer!
If they say its just a routine inspection let them look, don't let them open files
If they want to see a file ask for the warrant
If they insist ask (don't) demand to see a supervisor
4 - Be nice, calm, and ask the supervisor to witness
Any search (with understanding you are under protest) as there is no warrant.
Ask the supervisor for a full accounting of all files opened/accessed prior to boot/power on
(this is critical as they cant log all files accessed during boot)
5 - Best of all, don't give them a reason to search it
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Boot the laptop from a Linux CD. Encrypt the entire /dev/hda with a suitable key. Travel. Reach the destination. Boot from the CD again, decrypt /dev/hda. Optionally set and later unset the ATA password on the disk. Same approach can be used for sending data by mail or courier service.
TFA is talking about US court decisions, etc. Hence, it stands to reason that the Constitution being referenced is that of the US.
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
I probably should sue someone - I fell off my chair laughing when I read this. Imagine troglodytes who probably can't even say *information age" legislating for it.
Maybe if we stop re-electing the same clowns each and every election cycle and start sending new blood to DC and all our state capitols regularly we'll get leaders instead of career politicians. Maybe then we'll get legislation crafted to govern modern day America, not a bunch of ill-conceived, poorly thought out crap that most of them don't even bother to *read* before voting on.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
If the owner's rights aren't violated, then the constitution shouldn't be an issue. I'm not certain if an employee has any issue here. it's not his property. If an employee wishes to have certain rights as related to company property, then I believe it's up to them to organize, unite, all those things that they're not doing right now to insure that elected representatives will resolve it. The corps seem to have it together in this regard. Well, they got the money to swing it any way they wish. So then, let's pool ours. Added up together, we have 'em beat by a long shot. We have the power to completely remake the constitution if we ever decide to use it. Right now, we are letting the whackos remake it, and it sure ain't purdy.
What?
So they're free to ask me and I will refuse to unlock it. If that means they detain me then fine, they'll still need some kind of warrant, either to hold me or to search the machine. I will be more than happy to turn it on, to demonstrate it's a 'real' computer and not a box full of exploding nails but that's it.
before someone beats me to it (unless it has already happened).... Truecrypt hidden volumes? I doubt that the average airline security thug knows enough about the method to find anything, and one could always encrypt practically everything on the drive regardless of whether one had anything to hide - it's the principle of it! When Congress and the Constitution fail to protect digital privacy, perhaps it is better to take matters into one's own hands.
quia potentia mens mentis
My laptop computer was purchased by Stanford, but my whole life is stored on it. [...] In short, my computer is my most private possession.
If your most private possession is owned by someone else, the police are not even close to your worst worry.
First, there are several new cases that suggest that agents can search computers at the border
No, that's not accurate. The cases state that agents may make a search a requirement for crossing the border with the computer. You have the right to refuse the search and ship the computer back the way you came.
Second, a recent case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that private employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy
This has been true since the country's inception. Nor is it difficult to understand: Its not the employee's office or the employee's computer. They're not even under contract to you the way an apartment or hotel room would be. These things belong to the employer and the employer has a right to grant a warrantless search of its posessions just as you have the right to permit the police to search your house if you so choose.
The employer also has a right to refuse a warrantless search, you as you would of your posessions. The difference is: why would the employer want to? If you're breaking the law at work, they want to know about it just as much as the police do.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Did anyone else notice the lack of understanding of the separation of powers here?
The court's job is to interpret the laws. The Congress' job is to make the laws. The executive branch enforces them. The court should not be "crafting rules". Their job is to determine whether or not the executive branch (read: cops) violated the law. This sets precedence for further legal cases, but does NOT create new rules (read: laws).
Freakin' activist judges are part of the problem, not the solution.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
You have the right to be rendered to Syria for "questioning".
get Indi (http://getindi.com/)
I don't think I've read anything quite so frightening in a while.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8520847761 350501823&q=flex+your+rights
By utilizing the tactics in this video, you severely reduce the likelyhood of your rights being violated in the process of interacting with the police. The police prepare themselves for violating your rights, you must prepare yourself equally to ensure yourself maximum protection.
A few months back i flew back from Sao Paolo to the US over Houston. I got thoroughly searched at customs (could not refrain from laughing as the guy went through my old underwear). As the officer saw my digital camera he asked if i would mind him looking at it. Sure as hell i did and told him so politely. He went on to ask me if there was any childporn / incriminating material on it. I said that no, but that there could be my girlfriend naked on there. He said, he would not let me pass without scanning through all pictures.
I am not US citizen and had to catch an ongoing flight, so i had no choice but ask for a complaint form (no answer from them). I was pissed!
What's next, they will read my diary?
How many police officers know how to hack. I'd say your chances of finding one are small at best. I think all computers I have access to require passwords. I'm not saying that there aren't ways to obtain the data, but even during a routine search at a border it's not likely that the officer is going to have the tools to access my data without a password.
If you're really scared about it and you have sensitive data encrypt your sensitive data. That seems pretty simple to me. You can encrypt the e-mails locally stored on your computer. There is technology that will do that for you.
The only way they could find something on my PC is if they're already seized it from me and brought it back to those guys in the CSI lab that know how to ACTUALLY use a computer.
As a general rule of thumb I wouldn't want to have anything on my laptop I would regret falling into the wrong hands in the off chance someone decides to mug me.
With all that said; yeah it's wrong. Is it really that big of an issue?
Why bother with naughty websites when, if you're implanting stuff anyway, you could just put in an artificial gland that would release whatever on command?
And let's call it, um...a prostate gland.
I was stopped at the security checkpoint at Ohare airport, and asked to open my laptop bag for them to make sure I wasn't packing C4 or something. I pulled out my laptop and was asked to boot it up, again to prove I wasn't a terrorist.
The laptop was set to boot into linux, and the first thing to pop up on the screen was a black screen with a small white bar blinking in the top right. I turned it towards the security guard, and I could just smell the confusion coming off of him. He asked me to run something, and I told him I wouldn't. He called his supervisor over and started talking to him, I can just imagine the conversation. "Boss, his laptop doesn't show the Windows logo! I think he's a terrorist!"
Luckily, the supervisor was at least competent enough to recognize linux for what it is and let me by without further searching.
The Constitution has not failed us, nor will it fail us. We have failed ourselves by falling for every demagogue that promised safety if only we would give up a little freedom. We have failed ourselves by being busybodies and wanting to govern the private lives of those around us (see: gay marriage, pot smoking, prostitution laws, etc) but thinking that this doesn't erode freedom. We have failed ourselves by allowing political talking-heads to convince us that civil rights are "liberal" issues, that freeing someone who was convicted on a torture-induced confession is letting them off on a "technicality," and that civil rights themselves are quaint and outdated, unsuited for the complex world we live in today. The Constitution did not let us down, any more than the Sermon on the Mount let down Christians when they fall short of it and reach for dominion instead of goodness. The fact is that freedom is unpopular. Everyone wants it for themselves, but extending freedom for people to do things they find objectionable, like dating someone of the same sex, or smoking a joint, or hiring a hooker, or burning a flag, is too much to ask. The Constitution is fine--we're the problem.
Every example you give is a judicial failure, where judges make law instead of interpret it. You've allowed the media to misdirect you.
Thats were the trouble is. Say if it was for the car or a house there would be a title to specified item registered with the government. If ownership can't be proven, it can be taken either way. She can say it was a present, they can say it was for work use. If title was transferred on the owership then there must be a warrant. If computer is registered, Say with sysadmin and is on company file of assets and there was no awarding of it as a gift, then company has right to allow for search. This isn't a clear cut question, and court of law can make precedent and figure out who really was in ownership of the laptop.
2c.
IANAL
Ok, I RTFA, and the first half of the first sentence of the first paragraph really blows the whole article. Emphasis mine:
This laptop is not hers; it belongs to Stanford. As such, she shouldn't be storing any personal items on this machine. When you use a computer provided to you by your employer - even in higher ed (where I am an MIS manager) - the employer has every right to do with that machine as they please. They can take it away from you at any time for no reason, or volunteer it for searches, etc. This is your work machine, not yours.
I'm not being callous, just realistic. If you have personal data, don't keep it on a machine that belongs to your employer. Your personal email? Store it on a thumb drive, or use a service like Gmail. Personal financial records? Keep that on your computer at home - or at least encrypt it on a thumb drive. Photos of family members? Thumb drive.
I was returning from a pleasure trip to the dominican republic yesterday. Once we got to atlanta (the intermediary hub for my trip), I had to go through customs. I gave the immigration agent my (US) passport and stood there waiting for him to stamp it, give it back, and send me on my way like they usually do. Of course, that's not what happened.
He looked at me suspiciously, asked me some personal identifing information (social security number, DOB, middle name, etc) and proceded to type in his computer for a few minutes. Then he put a giant "B" on my immigration form and asked if I was travelling alone. I said no, that I was travelling with the young lady that he had just cleared through. He looked at her, and she walked back over.. He then put a big "B" on her form too. Great. At this point I had no idea what this was about... but it only got better.
The next step after that is to claim your checked luggage and clear through customs. For most people that involves handing the agent your form and being sent on your way. Not for me. I walk up to the agent and give him my passport and form and he says "I just need your form here sir, not your passport". So, I give him my form. And then he sees the giant "B". Oh. Uh oh... I need your passport after all sir. He takes my passport and form and puts them in an envelope, then tells me to follow lane two to the left. I ask him what the "B" means.. he responds "Oh, they'll tell you over there." Great, I'm thinking, I hope this doesn't take long.
I walk over and they have me put the folder in a numbered rack and take a seat. This is the area where they fully search your bags, looking for agricultural products, drugs, and who knows what else. It's full of people, and some are getting pretty irate, wondering if the border people will pay for connecting flights missed because they're taking forever to get through people. At one point I looked back and saw four agents seemingly doing nothing. Great. (In their defense I'm sure there were doing something, but from the blank look on their faces and lack of activity you'd never guess it). It didn't help that this was a no camera and cellphone zone, and that everyone and their mother was using a cell phone, trying to explain to family members why they weren't going to be home on time.
Anyways, after 45 minutes or so of nervously sitting in a chair I get called up. The woman that called me told me to leave my bags, and then proceeded to ask me some identifying information again (SS number, Middle name...). Then she asked me a very odd question: "What do you do for a living, Adam?", to which I replied "Well, I'm a student I guess..." Apparently that wasn't a satisfactory answer for her though, as she replied, prodding for more information "Just a student? You don't do.. anything else?" I answered, saying that I also ran a small business. From there the conversation went like this:
Her: "And what does your business do?"
Me: "I sell game console parts, accessories, and upgrades."
Her: "Is that all you sell?"
Me: "Uhm... yes?"
Her: "You don't sell any 'chips'?"
Me (Knowing perfectly well what she meant, though it's always good to clarify because for all I know she means potato chips): "What kind of chips?"
Her: "You tell me."
Me: "I sell some microchips I suppose..."
Her: "And are these chips illegal?"
Me: "Well, it's a legal grey area due to the DMCA, but no, I don't think they are."
Her: "Ok sir, go sit back down."
Uhm, right.. so at this point I'm a bit baffled. I just can't believe their stopping me at the BORDER because I sell modchips. I suppose that means I've garnered the attention of someone pretty high up there in our oh so wonderful government, and that made me feel like.. and important person or something. Definitely an ego booster.
Well, I go sit back down and wait to be called again. After another half hour or so of waiting they call me up again (Thank God we had a 3 hour layover...). At this point a gentleman asks us to put our bags on the belt and proc
appleguru.org
no reasonable expectation of privacy if you store your personal data in company file cabinet or on a company laptop, or in company email or in the company voicemail, for that matter. Why all the people replying to her story think this is a matter of privacy, constitutional rights and flag waving is beyond me.
The overwhelming response of the sysadmins, and many others, is, it's the employer's computer, therefore everything on it is available to the employer (ie. no expectation of privacy as confirmed by 9th Circuit). But there is another perspective that might be reasonably argued (Of course, IANAL; I am a media theory researcher and prof).
If we consider that electronic stuff (hardware, software and data) as containers within containers, the hardware might be owned by the employer, and the employer might have a right to see what containers are placed on the hardware. However, many of those containers (files) might contain so-called intellectual property that belongs to the person herself. The employer has no right to that (leaving aside, for the moment, contracts in which the individual stupidly gives all IP rights to the employer, even for private, non-work-related, non-compensated creations). The mere fact of physical location does not give the employer the right of unwarranted search. For example, the person's purse happens to be located in the desk drawer of the employer-supplied desk, within the employer's office. The employer does not have the right to search the purse, nor take possession of its contents. By analogy, I would argue that the content of personal data files (not necessarily the wrapper that is the file structure itself) is off-limits to the employer.
In short: the employer has the right (according to court ruling) to see the files on their property, but not necessarily the file content. The courts have not distinguished among respective ownerships of the hardware, the data structures, and the data contents. This distinction is something that will eventually be tested in court, I expect.
Like other posters, I agree that the employer could demand immediate return of the laptop and the individual would lose all of her personal information, and therefore the person must assume that risk of loss, encryption or no encryption. And I use my own laptop for my work - the employer does not have the right to access my machine. If they want my work (which they do) they agree to my terms. Every so often I hear the dire warning of the IT department about not providing me support. But then again, I've had occasion to fix some of the messes on other users' computers that were "supported" by the IT department.
"At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age."
ROFL
Property is theft.
Are you implying that we should have universal military service like Switzerland and Israel?
HELL YES!!! Allow people to carry their firearms, open carry, first. Then have a citizens' army wherein most if not all adults are part of it. Have just a small professional core military for training, command and control, and to oversee weapons development.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Or a little institution involving African Americans called "slavery" where human beings were considered property solely due to the color of their skin?
In the first drafts of the Declaration Of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men enjoyed rights. This included Indians, slaves, and women. However because others, including slavers, had to approve the DOI this was stricken from the DOI. He was a walking contradiction, for though he owned slaves himself he was against slavery.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think that an employer has a right to monitor their own computers
Employers most certainly should monitor how a laptop the employer owns is used, and the employees who are given that laptop should not have any personal or private data on the laptop. However the articles says nothing about employers monitoring them.
Employers should also have a right to let investigators search their computers.
Again true, but the article says nothing about whether law enforcement officals are even asking employers to inspect laptops.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I see the skin as a natural barrier, and would prefer to go Amish rather than be some ghoulish cyborg.
I think I understand what you're saying but I'd rather have all the info to make a decision on whether to join the Amish or to have an implant. Generally I wouldn't want an implant and would rather join the Mennonites however as I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, if there were an implant that would help me I may go for an implant. I may even agree to be a rat for an experiment.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Go ahead." ...because you make backups before you leave the house with your laptop and you know that it is better to recreate the last few hours' work rather than being caught lying to a border guard.
Show me your warrant if you want to look at my data.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Cool. :-)
I got partially searched by customs and I didn't even leave the USA!
I got on a ferry coming from Canada so when it got to the dock, everyone had to clear.
Customs person holding my PDA..."Can we look at this?"
Me..."I'll be happy to wait while you get a warrant."
Customs person, frowning..."you're free to go"
Me...
When they ask if they can search, you ALWAYS SAY NO!!!
Don't you guys watch cops?
The job of the courts are to adjudicate, er decide, if a law is constitutional as well. If it is not then the court has the constitutional ability to declare the law unconstitutional.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What you've got here is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters of searching laptops... they're arguing is that you shouldn't worry about your work laptop being searched because it's not yours, and usually work disallows you from putting private data on there anyway. There's two problems with that. First, if it's a work laptop the TSA is searching, YOU are not the owner, especially if you are following the rules, what would you do with an encrypted volume or such work put on there to keep your email or company financial data private if your laptop was stolen? The second fallacy is that the TSA is saying if it's not your "work" laptop you somehow shouldn't be traveling with personal private data... that's the biggest form of bullshit ever. It's the whole "you incriminate yourself" by brining private material into a public place that's going on more and more lately... and that is 10 ways from wrong.. The founding fathers clearly knew what they wrote, in 1776 you would take crates of personal stuff along on trips.. often guys like George Washington or Ben Franklin were away from their homes on travel for MONTHS at a time... personal property is just that...personal... demanding that it remain personal is not some "license" to perform a search because you ask they not look there... that's exactly what unreasonable search is.. especially when the search is unrequested in a public place.
Where I work, there is no such thing as laptop privacy. The moment you sign that NDA and are hired, you're stuck like Chuck. Also, when you send your laptop in for repair, we're allowed to snoop thru your stuff, for testing purposes. Any file we can access to test the reliability of the system (say after a systemboard replacement) is fair game, for quality assurance purposes. If we find child porn on your drive, you can bet your ass we're gonna report it. The lesson for the day is.. don't do stupid shit like look at child porn and save it to your harddrive (I busted someone last night on a doubletime shift because their laptop had child porn. Instant call to the feds, whom we have on speed dial.) Someone is always watching, whether intentionally or not. Big brother isn't just the government, it's EVERYONE.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You keep mentioning this East Timor, I never really paid to much attention to it because I didn't think the US was involved in it outside of not protesting it. You seem fixated on it so I brushed up a littlw and it seems that I'm once again correct. Wikipedia often gets rewriten to support one cause or another. So when I confirmed my position with the link you gave to the wiki as well as followed it to the same conclusion from other links in the site, I checked a few other placed too. It apears the the US didn't support anything at all. They just didn't object to it. You make it sound like we were directly behind it and ford was the most evil president until Bush.
I call BS. Ford and Kissinger encouraged or gave green light to Suharto to invade East Timor:
From the National Security Archives at George Washington University: Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975: New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto
Finally, according to the State Department, 90 percent of the weapons used in the invasion came from the United States. Two years later, as the atrocities in East Timor were reaching a peak, President Jimmy Carter authorized an addition $112 million in weapons sales to Indonesia.
Coverage of the fall of Suharto reveals with startling clarity the ideological biases and propaganda role of the mainstream media. Suharto was a ruthless dictator, a grand larcenist and a mass killer with as many victims as Cambodia's Pol Pot. But he served U.S. economic and geopolitical interests, was helped into power by Washington, and his dictatorial rule was warmly supported for 32 years by the U.S. economic and political establishment. The U.S. was still training the most repressive elements of Indonesia's security forces as Suharto's rule was collapsing in 1998, and the Clinton administration had established especially close relations with the dictator ("our kind of guy," according to a senior administration official quoted in the New York Times, 10/31/95).
But Suharto is a U.S. ally, and has conducted his atrocities with either the approval or the active participation of the U.S. government.
Despite the atrocities and numerous U.N. resolutions condemning the invasion and occupation, the U.S., Japan and a number of Western European countries continue to provide the invader with about $5 billion in annual economic assistance.
The Indonesian dictator (pdf) then raised the Timor issue, saying, "We want your understanding, if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action." Ford replied: "We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have."
Suharto needed Washington's go-ahead due to a 1958 agreement that prohibited Indonesia from using U.S.-origin weaponry, which made up 90 percent of Jakarta's arsenal at the time, except for "legitimate national self-defense." (2) For this reason Kissinger suggested that the invasion be framed as self-defense, thus circumventing any legal obstacles.
Ford, Kissinger and 1975
East Timor was ruled by Portugal for about 3 centuries. During World War II, thousands of East Timorese lost their lives helping Australia forces fight against the Japanese. East Timor was then invaded by Indonesia shortly after Portugal abruptly left, in 1975. This was the day after U.S. President Ford's visit to Indonesia, with what people have suspected as being a "green light" to invade. At that time, Indonesia had military, economic and politica
Should there be a Law?