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.
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. -G.B. Shaw
KFG
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
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than the majority deserves.
Democracy is a horrible system of government for the minority dissenters in the group . . .
Godless heathen.
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.
Real option... are you really prepared for it? Let's say you're at the border with an encrypted partition. Are you hoping they won't notice the partition? Let's say they find it.
Officer: What is this 40-gig partition here?
You: I don't know, random junk.
Officer: So you don't mind if we zero it?
You: Don't do that! It's my personal files... encrypted.
Officer: Please unlock it so we can take a look.
You: No thanks. It's just my personal files anyway.
Officer: You know, this is the equivalent of transporting a safe in your luggage, and refusing to open it so we can verify its content. Unlock your partition so we can take a look.
You: No way.
Officer: You leave me no choice but to suspect that you have something illegal in there. To follow up on my analogy, I suspect that you have drugs or a bomb in your safe. There's no way you're crossing the border today. Wait in this tiny room while we decide which charges we're going to press against you.
The Constitution already provides protection to us. The real problem is, we have failed to protect the Constitution.
We've let our rights be whittled away over the centuries... a DMCA here, a 'Patriot' Act there... because we the people have failed to enforce our rights are under the Constitution, and our 'leaders' have chosen to ignore the Constitution altogether, except where it suits themselves.
Ironically, the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place BECAUSE they were afraid that future generations would forget the ideals the Constitution was based upon!
From the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 4, I quote...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Note that it does not say 'UNLESS it would make more work for the police'.
It does not say 'UNLESS you are crossing the border'.
It does not say 'UNLESS you are gainfully employed'.
In fact, there is no UNLESS anywhere in there.
What DOES it say, people? All together now... 'SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED' .
Congress has NO power (under the Constitution) to create legislation which violates this right, short of a new Amendment.
The President has no power (under the Constitution) to enforce any such (un Constitutional) law.
However, they have DEFACTO powers to do so, because we the people have become a bunch of sissies and let them get away with 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!
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.
This was my first thought on reading the summary. The thing is, almost all of the examples given in the article are either speculation about what could possibly maybe happen or instances where the computer does not belong to the person being investigated. I think that an employer has a right to monitor their own computers. Employers should also have a right to let investigators search their computers.
But there are still so many who fail to keep work out of the rest of their lives or the rest of their lives out of their work laptop. The article's author freely admints that her laptop was purchased by not her, possibly an employer. If it's not yours it's, well, not yours and anything no matter how personal you put on it is not yours. Unless you have some written agreement allowing all data stored on it to be your personal property, think lease, you don't own what's on it either. I've made it a point to NOT have a work laptop, or e-leash as it should be called as you may be expected to take it home and put in some late night or weekend unpaid time.
If you have to have carry some personal data around with you, and/or don't happen to have a secure server at home, encrypt(and hidden file) it and stick it on the non-music/video area or notes folder of an ipod. They're far more common than linux running laptops and probably far less likely to create draw unwanted attention.
airport/boarder/other security guard/storm trooper: what's that?
you: my ipod
guard: turn it on
you: ok
guard: looks good, these are not the droids we're looking for, move along
Or it may remain unnoticed and unquestioned in your pocket
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Perhaps we'll just need to bring the papers and effects closer to our "person" in the interim. How many people might get a little bio-engineered implant that holds a relatively large amount of data? Access it over bluetooth, direct via your mind, or something else.
Of course, there are a lot of steps between that technology and reality, but I think forcing a person into surgery to get at some data which may or may not be hidden away inside of them would rub a lot of people the wrong way.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than the majority deserves.
.ooooooooooooooo, shiney!
Shaw used the royal "we" and his observation was directed at your point. Democratic forms of government at best serve the lowest common demoniator (which is something rather different than the majority). At worst it is, of course, nothing more than a self-satisfied lynch mob.
Which is why the framers gave us a Congress instead of a democracy (they knew about Athens), under a constitution (they knew about Rome). They anticipated Shaw's further observation that anyone who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
It is not the fault of Congress if the least common denominator has demanded more and more democracy while deserving it less and less.
It is the fundamental premise of our governmental philosophy that the government will be corrupted and that it is the responsibility of The People, freemen all, to see to their own freedoms.
Where The People demand the "freedom" to be endentured in order that they may be "free" to watch Survivor and Big Brother on a really big TV, that is the freedom they will get.
Freedom is messy and uncomfortable. The People would rather be comfortable serfs than uncomfortable freemen, in numbers far greater than a simple majority. Let's call it, ooooooooh (pulling a number out of my ass that probably isn't too far wrong) - 98%.
Give me liberty, or give me. .
KFG
THAT's why you need absolutes in laws
Right, because modern legal language like the kind used to write EULAs and NDAs is so superior to the Constitution, which can be read and understood by normal people.
Just because modern Americans tend to be so petty and self-serving that they demand things be explained with a page of words instead of a sentence does not mean that's how things should be done.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
So you don't mind if we zero it?
...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.
"Go ahead."
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? :-)
Why bother with naughty websites when, if you're implanting stuff anyway, you could just put in an artificial gland that would release endorphins (or whatever) on command?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Like me, you should back up your laptop's encrypted partition daily. If they wipe the partition, you can get it back next time you're online. But the important thing in these searches is to put them on notice that you don't consent, because consenting, or failing to assert the opposite, will make an otherwise illegal search, legal. By putting them on notice, they run the risk of conducting an illegal search of your laptop.
At an airport they have the right to search you physically, for drugs and stuff, but in these days where we can send any information we want overseas via the internet, there's no justification for searching data on a laptop.
Keep in mind that a regular email is like a post card in the postal system... anyone can read it.
encrypted email on the other hand is more like a sealed envelope.
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
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.
Try this senario, I'm crossing the boarder with my laptop, someone with the same name as me is an EvilTerrorist(TM) being watched. In the back room they slip in a Knoppix cd and dd my harddrive out through the ethernet port. Of course they quickly figure out that I'm the wrong guy so what do they do, the honorable thing is to dump all that data, the human thing is to be embarassed and go fishing for some dirt. At least with encryption it'll cost them some effort to be human instead of honorable.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds