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.'"

23 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. At that point, the Constitution may fail us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The constitution certainly left the building back in the age of the new deal, possibly even as early as aliens and sedition.

    1. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by genrader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AMEN. The New Deal was not the last of the Constitution though. Alien and Sedition Acts were bad, as were many other things, but the death of the Constitution was in 1913, when Congress took away its own power to coin money and gave it to a private bank, as well as the introduction of the income tax and the end of Senators being elected by states. The only reason we have it so good now is because of our wariness of tyranny and the great age of capitalism, but that will all end when the right tyrant comes along.

    2. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by k1e0x · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Word.

      1913 was the *start* of us loosing our rights but with the recent stuff (patriot act, land seizures, warrant less wire taping, military tribunals) its all gone now.

      I cant think of a single part of the bill of rights that we still have.

      Why is speech "limited" at political rallies or universities? Why is hate speech a crime? ..because the 1st Amendment is meaningless.

      Why are there gun laws restricting firearms? ..because the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

      The 3rd.. is possibly impractical.. and also probably meaningless as well.. but if not, the feds will find a way to make it legal.

      The government can search practically anything they want now? Laptops, Phone records, E-Mail, you name it, why? ..because the 4th Amendment is meaningless.

      How can the City of New London takes peoples land and give it to Pfizer? ..because the 5th Amendment is meaningless.

      Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail? ..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.

      Why does just about everyone accused of mutable crimes seek a plea bargain for a lesser offence instead of standing up for there rights? Why does the state tack on so many charges with extreme punishment (101 years for spamming)? ..because the 7th Amendment is -basically- meaningless.

      Why is a man being sentenced to 101 years for spamming? Why is another man sentenced (and denied appeal) to 50 years in prison for selling pot? Why are children being convicted of molesting each other? ..because the 8th Amendment is meaningless.

      Why does the government have the power to do anything we don't specially say they don't have or can pick apart and widdle down the other rights we have? Why is it the people reserve no rights beyond what's listed in the constitution .. that or what the government allows? ..because the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless.

      We have a "vestige" of the construction.. we don't actually have enforceable rights in the same sense as they were written. The Ed Brown case is part of this, the court would not allow him to use constructional law in his court. read that again.. you can't use the construction.. the highest law on of land in a U.S. federal court. The judges swear an oath to it but its entirely irreverent anymore.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    3. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'd almost argue this. After all, there's no reason a person needs a main battle tank, or a series of cruise missiles, sitting in their backyard.

      Can you "bear" a main battle tank or a cruise missile? No.

      "Arms", in historical context, meant guns that were carried by a soldier. The term was understood to be distinct from "cannon", big-ass guns that were not something a man would "keep and bear".

      If a weapon is something that an infantryman would carry into battle, it falls within the rightful scope of the right to keep and bear arms recognized in Amendment II, within the corollary to right of self- and community-defense - the right of access to defensive tools.

      If it's a WMD, if its mere presence creates a danger to people nearby (like if my neighbor was keeping anthrax spores or large amounts of TNT in his shed), the RKBA is not infringed by regulating it. Except, for the fact, that a peashooter isn't going to do it these days.

      Iraq. Afghanistan (US and USSR experiences). Palestine. Vietnam. Connect the dots and see the picture: groups with "pea shooters" can mount a significant resistance against an vastly better armed occupier.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail? ..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.

      He's admitted to blowing up a civilian airplane and is a fugitive from Venezuela.

      That's not Jose Padilla, Padilla was the so called dirty bommber arrested at Chicago's OHara airport. The one you're think of that blew up that airplane, Cubana Flight 455 is Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban living in Miami as a free man. Venezuela has repeatedly asked the US for his extradiction but the US refuses to hand him over.

      Falcon
  2. And Hopefully... by photomonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
    1. Re:And Hopefully... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. -G.B. Shaw

      KFG

    2. Re:And Hopefully... by zCyl · · Score: 4, Informative
      When the day comes that the Constitution can no longer protect us in the information age

      Uh, but it does, and plainly so. Not only is a laptop part of a person's "effects" as protected explicitly in the fourth amendment, but the contents of a laptop are ones papers. The search of papers inside of a laptop is thus the same as the search of papers inside of an envelope. The transmission of a paper via email is no different than the transmission of a paper via postal mail. The constitution plainly and clearly provides protection for this, and it is simply a question of whether the courts will acknowledge this now, or come to their senses later. It is not exactly a matter of interpretation when the language is that clear.
    3. Re:And Hopefully... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than the majority deserves.

      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. . .ooooooooooooooo, shiney!

      KFG

  3. Congress makes laws in our interest?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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.

  4. So? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:So? by E8086 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  5. Two words by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:one word... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Informative

    Many countries, such as Britain, criminalize witholding encryption keys from law enforcement to the extent that unless you are actually a terrorist with detailed and executable plans of action labeled 'evil plot' stupidly stored on your laptop, you are probably better off (in the criminal liability sense) just giving it to them. Sadly, I don't think that the US is far behind on this one, either.

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  7. Encryption is the only real option by cje · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Encryption is the only real option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  8. Story by eosp · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  9. whiny!!! by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Don't be a cheapskate! by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  11. Failed what? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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 ... 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.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  12. Re:one word... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's what a steganographic filesystem is for: plausible deniability. You have multiple layers of data encryption, none of which know about the lower layers, each of which stores data in the free space left behind by the upper layer. They ask you for the password, you provide the password to financial records at the first encrypted layer. For that matter, you could have an unencrypted layer on top so that there's no proof that any encrypted data even exists. In the unlikely event that they find the crypto tool, though, you have financial records at the first encrypted level. Say that there's nothing else, but under duress, admit to a second level with something a little more embarrassing (e.g. your porn collection). Keep anything that has to be kept secret at the third level.

    There are two big problems, though: 1. Writes to the upper layer overwrite data at the lower layers, so the redundancy at the lower layers is pretty crucial to avoid data loss, and even then, beyond a certain point, you'll start losing data. 2. All the implementations I've seen out there are Linux-only (or at best UNIX/Linux), which makes them less than useless for most of the general public.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  13. Re:And Hopefully...Constitutional Plugins by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  14. A few simple thoughts by thorkyl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...