Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Courts Consider Legality of Laptop Inspection

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the my-porn-is-all-grown-up-anyway dept.

ceide2000 writes "The government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer's hard drive, the government says, is no different from looking through a suitcase. One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit." This story follows up on a story about laptop confiscation at the borders from a few months ago.

107 of 595 comments (clear)

  1. next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    next is your banking information, previous employments, medical history and telephone calls made in the past 6 months.

    Welcome to the USA.

    1. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Next?

      Are you kidding? There is no fundamental law which protects the stuff you mention. Instead there is a patchwork of laws like HIPAA, ECPA, Fair Credit Reporting etc that protect against various egregious abuses, but many if not most of these laws have massive loopholes. For example, the Government is forbidden to take its records and create dossiers on random citizens, but it can buy that same information from vendors on the open market.

      And most of these laws have explicit exceptions of law enforcement and intelligence activities.

      There is no fundamental right to privacy recognized in US law, especially if you are a strict constructionist. The only protection for individual privacy in the US is political; if people get mad enough, then Congress will places the biggest patch on the problem that they can get past the lobbyists.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:next will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there is a right to privacy fundamental in the Constitution both through the 4th Amendment (its purpose is to protect the citizenry from unfair intrusion by the Government) and via the 9th and 10th amendments (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. and powers not granted the federal government in the Constitution or given to it by the States are reserved for the states or the people).

    3. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing about citizenry. The law states that "The People" shall be secure in their person and effects.

    4. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ninth, of course, is the most important of the amendments when it comes to privacy. The Fourteenth is probably the next most important, with its protection of liberty and due process.

      The Fourth in itself doesn't really say anything about privacy. It doesn't even keep the government from prying into our private affairs. It does two things: it prevents the government from "unreasonable" (that is to say more or less irrational) seizures and searches. It doesn't even require a warrant for any search or seizure, but it sets standards for warrants where they are customary. If you are a strict constructionist, it doesn't do anything more.

      It is centuries of judicial interpretation and faulty pedagogy that have invested the fourth amendment with privacy protecting powers. Conservative jurists have fought this every step of the way. It was innovators like Louis Brandeis who saw a "right to be left alone" implied by the fourth and fifth amendments, and liberals like William Douglas (Griswold v. Connecticut) and Harry Blackmun (Roe v. Wade) who found a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment. It certainly isn't there in plain words, but what is there (they would argue) doesn't make sense unless is protecting such a right.

      Strict construction is an argument against this kind of reasoning. However if you believe in this philosophy, you'd better be pretty accurate about what the Constitution does say, because it lacks a great deal of the mechanics you'd need to protect individual liberties, although the spirit is there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:next will be... by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, however "The People" is more inclusive. Citizenry regards a group of people who belong to a certain status. "The People" is just vague enough to be all encompassing. Therefore, everybody here has those protections. When you limit it to citizens you create a disgusting class structure of rights.

    6. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't citizenry fall within 'The people'?


      The citizenry is a subset of the people. The word 'citizen' was left out of the Bill of Rights on purpose - the colonial British were fond of stripping citizenship in order to carry out all manner of injustice on people.

      Not to mention the fact that the political philosophy that gave birth to our nation does not limit human rights to "citizens" of some hypothetical state, but applies it to all humans equally. It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

      Which, incidentally, is why I don't buy any of the government's arguments about why imprisoning people in Guantanamo is legal.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    7. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These days it's so easy to say "Those rights aren't protected!" but most people forget that the Constitution was intended to tell the government the powers it has, not what rights the people have.


      For practical purposes, those rights aren't protected, because the Constitution does empower to government to do lots of things, and not in minute detail, but in broad terms. For example the Constitution gives the government the power to wage war or to enforce laws. If you've been paying attention, the big privacy problems come when the government is doing stuff it's supposed to be doing. The question is, how far can it go when it's doing what it's supposed to be doing?

      Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't really say.

      One claim is that it can go as far as proves useful; that if pursuing a particular course results in more criminals being caught or terrorists being thwarted. Such a course of action, in broad terms, is reasonable. It's the details that get unreasonable. An explicit and detailed right of privacy would make the government work harder in such cases. It would probably even work better. But the Constitution doesn't mandate good policy. It empowers the government (as you say) and protects citizens (although not as much as they think).

      It sounds reassuring to say that Constitutional strict construction restrains the government from impinging on individual liberties. It would be great if it were true. But it isn't. The government is empowered to do all kinds of things, that if done in certain ways would undoubtedly infringe on individual liberties, and the borders of how far it can go aren't spelled out very precisely, which means the border drawn around individuals is all the more important. Unfortunately the Constitution isn't so great there either.

      We think of ourselves as a free people. We think of our freedoms as guaranteed by our Constitution -- as indeed some of them are. We believe ourselves protected by the Constitution (whatever it actually says), and it is this which is the secret of American freedom. It is the certainty public outrage that restrains the government from all kinds of outrages against liberty. It isn't the Constitution, although that was a good effort for the 1700s, it is the American people's ability to get mad as hell that keeps Uncle Sam in line.

      We'd better hope we don't loose that ability.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:next will be... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we need is another ammendment that extends the protections of the bill of rights to anywhere under the control/power of the US (so they can't claim that the customs line isn't US territory) or their agents (so extraordinary rendition is prima facia illegal). That, and actually applying the 4th/14th to property seizure.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:next will be... by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although I agree with your philosophy, I don't think your argument holds water.

      The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects. Of course the Crown was never an absolute monarchy, it was never anything like the crown of France, or Spain. The barons had this thing called the Magna Carta.

      There were always a few Whigged out eccentrics who thought ordinary people had, not just a few basic rights, but something called liberty. Many people toyed with such views in their phase of youthful indiscretion, but it was the overseas provincials who really bought into the whole delusion. So much so that when they gained their independence, they set up their entire government the exact way they thought the government in London was operating all along. There were a few republican small r twists. The King was called the President and he was elected every four years. The House of Lords was called the Senate (wealthy provincialism is no barrier to having a fine library of Latin works) and the commons was called the House of Representatives. But pretty much they took the customary powers of each piece of the English government (as they understood them) and put them down in a document that ensured that government would be weak and far away, just like in the good old days before the King started taking an interest in Colonial affairs.

      They didn't bother to write everything down, like exactly when warrants are needed, because everybody already knew how that was supposed to work. Which is why the Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights to begin with. Once it was proposed, it wasn't really a controversial idea; some people had a bee in their bonnet about what seemed perfectly clear to most people, so they did what Americans always do when faced with a complex philosophical problem like the relationship of the people to the government. They put together a quick patch that seemed to cover most of the things people were most concerned about, got it passed, and got on with the business of innovation, territorial expansion, and generally making money.

      Consequently, a lot of what they put down is open to interpretation. Interpretation being what it is, this is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens. Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.

      Which doesn't mean they'd actually agree on anything, other than the meaning was plain one way or another.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects.


      I should have chosen my words more carefully: they'd be stripped of the protections of the Magna Carta and associated law by merely declaring them enemies of the crown. Such abuse is well documented.

      Although I agree with your philosophy, I don't think your argument holds water.

      Fair enough.

      As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens.


      And on principle I simply can't accept those arguments. Anyone who is believed to have done something so heinous should have such evidence presented against them in a public court of law. Law, justice, its practice, and people's faith in the fairness of that law is seriously compromised when "justice" becomes something done in secret. I think the value of transparency and general faith in the principles of one's government are greater than the value of some supposed secret.

      Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.

      I ponder on that point frequently; it's unfortunate more of our founders' ideas weren't explicitly written down. So much of what they took for granted has changed. They KNEW it was inevitable that we'd lose sight of the principles on which this country was founded; Jefferson wrote extensively on the subject.

      Then, sometimes I think that BECAUSE they knew it was inevitable, they didn't attempt to stave it off; and instead allowed for the situation when revolutions would have to be fought again, because attempting to hold off the need for revolutions pretty much prolongs the inevitable.

      And then, sometimes, I get tired of thinking of the whole thing and wish I could be as indifferent as everyone else seems to be..
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    11. Re:next will be... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do see this as rational and understandable, but I cannot accept it as "applies it to all humans equally" and not calling it "hypocritical".


      I was the GP.

      At any rate - yes, our founders struggled with the seeming hypocrisy of the issue for the rest of their lives. Jefferson was especially bothered by it, which is why he freed his slaves in his will. It was a terrible compromise made so that the US could be formed at all; the Southern States would not have joined the Revolutionary War had they not been promised that they would be able to keep their slaves, nor would they have ratified the US Constitution. In that case, unity was chosen as a higher value than the ideals the nation was founded on.

      Some call the Civil War the "last battle of the American Revolution" precisely because it finally addressed that issue.

      Killing people from your own nation just because they want to get rid of government is bit puzzling to me. Should the south be considered conquered territory? This sure sounds like flaming but I really want to know.


      I'm American; personally? I don't justify it. Some say it was an overall good because it eliminated slavery, which is a fair enough argument; the problem I have with it is that the Civil War was used to justify solidifying the power of the Federal Government over the many US States. It was at that point that the centralized power of the US began to grow, and we see what the effect of that concentration of power has been.

      Abraham Lincoln justified the war in legalese by saying there was no justification to dissolve the union, or more precisely, that there is no exit clause in the Constitution if States decided they no longer wanted to be part of it. It was a calculated risk backed up by military force but the justification he used has always been questionable.

      It was a laudable goal to eliminate slavery, but that wasn't the reason the Civil War started; it was only a very small part of it. Not until 1863 did Lincoln say that abolishing slavery was one of the goals; prior to that, it was all about putting down the rebellion.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
  2. But by kieran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can they demand you decrypt data or, worse, provide the key?

    1. Re:But by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could try answering the question instead of giving a snarky response ... the article "discusses" it, yes, but doesn't completely clarify the issue - the bottom line is that the 5th amendment 'probably applies' (I presume only to citizens?), but I'm guessing you're likely to be subjected to a fairly rigorous police-state-like series of events if you try to refuse to give your password. If you're just a tourist and not a citizen, you're probably a lot worse off too, I'm not sure what would happen.

    2. Re:But by eln · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not that the Bill of Rights has much sway in cases where "terrorism" or "national security" can be applied, but the 5th amendment applies to "persons" rather than "citizens" (this distinction is made several times in the Constitution), and thus applies equally to anyone under US jurisdiction, whether they are a citizen or not.

      So, if we actually followed the Bill of Rights, no one should be compelled to give that information, regardless of where they come from.

    3. Re:But by sholden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's pretty clear cut fifth amendment (it was a question in that case because the person has already given the pass phrase to the customs agent) , if you don't know that you can claim that then you really shouldn't be traveling to the US (especially with something you know you're not allowed to have).

      It's foolish not to find out about the laws and customs before you travel to foreign countries. Of course if you are a tourist I think the agent can just refuse you entry anyway - which might be better if you really do have something to hide. Though a refused entry record is going to make international travel a pain for the rest of your life.

      If you're a citizen, then the ka-ching sounds will be making it hard to concentrate as you try to get everything on record for the sue everyone vaguely involved action that's coming...

      Of course there's always the chance you get shipped off to the middle east for some torture since you look like you might have once been in the same building as someone who went to school with someone who is a suspected terrorist. It's not something I'd try, but then again I wouldn't be trying to cross the border with child pornography on my laptop...

    4. Re:But by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The assholes, rummaging through a hard drive means LOOKING into someone's personal life, proprietary information, or the like. Rummaging through a suitcase doesn't involve asking for receipts of when, where, and for how much the clothing or toiletries were purchased, or for or by whom the purchases were made.

      This has less to do with protecting the public than it does with further conditioning the public to EXPECT to surrender for ANY reason, even without suspicion or due process or valid warrants.

      Why, just WHY should the public trust some low-level functionary or scanner operator to NOT heft away with product ideas?

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    5. Re:But by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Congress, in passing DMCA, legitimized DRM. Sometimes the answer is, "I don't know the key. Ask Columbia Pictures."

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    6. Re:But by richcsst · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is, you aren't "in the country" until Customs says you are. This is international law. The areas marked for international travel are technically an "embassy", not US soil. This allows the governments (plural, no matter where you are) to send you back where you came from without you actually legally "arriving". The movie "The Terminal" shows this concept very well. So, until Customs approves your arrival, you're not in the USA (and its "jurisdiction") and the US Constitution does not apply. The same goes for other countries as well.

      So, you can refuse a search, but then again, they can refuse to let you into their country. The control is left to you and them (mostly them).

      So, remember, whilst in an international terminal, whether airport or border crossing, you are in a place where only international law applies until that country says you are in their country. Until they say you are in their country, they have every right to search anything you bring with you, and every right to confiscate anything deemed as contraband, every right to send you back where you came from, and every right to use anything they found as evidence against you according to their country's laws after they say you are "in their country".

  3. Luckily by svelemor · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... there are effective ways to protect your own privacy http://www.truecrypt.org/

  4. Suitcase opening... HAH! by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not suitcase snooping, this is opening a sealed envelope found within my suitcase and reading the contents even though both the suitcase and envelope test negative on the bomb sniffer.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    1. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by winkydink · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, upon entering the country, they can open a sealed letter in your possession and read the contents already.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    2. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by sholden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your assumption is wrong. It's to search for items which are illegal to bring into the country. That would some plants and animals (quarantine laws), and also certain bit sequences on a hard drive (child pornography), bits of paper (undeclared currency over a magic value), arbitrary objects (that you didn't pay duty on) and a lot of other things. It's customs doing the searching, they don't actually care about bombs - of course if they found one they'd bring in the people who do care about such things...

    3. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by servognome · · Score: 4, Informative

      That sounds suspicious (for instance I doubt they can do it for mail). Care to back up that statement?
      They can for mail. Thank this one to the "war" on drugs.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    4. Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! by Adambomb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real question is, if it isnt sanctioned by law, what process can foreign visitors follow to complain? Who is the ombudsman?

      I have this odd feeling that there isnt one. The CBP certainly do not list the procedures, nor is it easily found using their search or site maps. For all I know it may be there, but i sure am not running across the list of regulations concerning search and seizure of foreign visitors.

      If it is sanctioned by law, well if you dont like it do not visit. Many area already thinking this way in the nebulous "rest of the world", although i almost want to thank the US for creating a HUGE influx of conferences being hosted in canada that used to be hosted in the US. Tim hortons alone is grinning ear to ear on that one.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
  5. No you have a choice. by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A. You can decrypt the data
    B. You can go back where you came from

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:No you have a choice. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful
      B. You can go back where you came from

      What if you came from the US? I know that many Americans are ok with tourists to the US having no privacy rights, but what about US citizens - is it ok that a citizen loses his rights as soon as he encounters US borders? It seems the 4th amendment ought to protect you against "unreasonable searches and seizures". It's certainly reasonable to search a suitcase for illegal drugs, explosives or quantities of goods which exceed the import limits. All of these things are directly border-related. However is it reasonable to search a laptop at the border? Sure a laptop might contain illegal files, but that's always the case. So if it's reasonable to search for these at the border, it should be reasonable to search for these on all computers all of the time.

    2. Re:No you have a choice. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is there now a place for a program that decrypts data in two ways?

      It's called TrueCrypt and is available for Windows, Linux and to some degree for OS X.

      Main Features:

              * Creates a virtual encrypted disk within a file and mounts it as a real disk.

              * Encrypts an entire hard disk partition or a storage device such as USB flash drive.

              * Encryption is automatic, real-time (on-the-fly) and transparent.

              * Provides two levels of plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password:

                  1) Hidden volume (steganography - more information may be found here).

                  2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).

              * Encryption algorithms: AES-256, Serpent, and Twofish. Mode of operation: LRW.

                  Further information regarding features of the software may be found in the documentation.
    3. Re:No you have a choice. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be true, but as far as information goes, there's nothing that you can't get into the country on a laptop hard disk that you couldn't just as easily bring over the internet. Worse, this only applies to people crossing at checkpoints. Mexicans seem to have no problem crossing almost anywhere there ISN'T check point

    4. Re:No you have a choice. by homer_ca · · Score: 2

      That's really the solution. Keep an absolute minimum of working files on the laptop, and keep your files online either on a trusted server or in encrypted archives. It's sad, but if you want minimal hassles with Customs, be prepared to log in to a bare Windows with hardly any files and let them poke around. Don't have anything that looks remotely like encryption software. A zip program with AES encryption and a secure file wipe utility should cover it. You have nothing to be nervous or guilty about. Individuals and businesses have a legitimate right to protect sensitive personal info like financials. However, Customs is given a lot of discretion in searches. You're better off avoiding the hassle to begin with.

    5. Re:No you have a choice. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right up to the moment they use an undelete tool on your laptop and find the formerly uninstalled encryption program on your hard drive....


      I think you missed the point... TrueCrypt allows you to hide an encrypted volume in the same filespace as another innocuous encrypted volume. TrueCrypt can also run as a portable app... no registry entries etc; you can run the entire thing off of a USB drive or SD card. Of course, there will still be visible data in the OS's pagefiles....

      The other trick TrueCrypt uses is that it doesn't leave recognizable headers, so you could have 10 truecrypt files with innocuous names hidden within other files, and unless you know they're there, there is no way to identify them. Use a standard TrueCrypt archive and the TrueCrypt software to store your home computer inventory or something similar, and you can show this to anyone who wonders why you've got an encrypted partition on your drive/USB drive.

      Of course, as I mentioned elsewhere, the best way to go about this is to have a multilayer truecrypt drive file named DSCINDEX.TOC and store it on the SD card you keep in your digital camera. Such files are generally treated as junk files, and an examination of the file would make it look like junk... unless you tried to mount it with TrueCrypt after mounting the card on your computer desktop.

      Probably easier just to use TrueCrypt to encrypt your laptop drive at the drive level though, and have two passwords to reveal two different sets of data. That way your pagefile will be encrypted too, and the only way to analyze the sensitive data would be to read the RAM chips with a special device. Of course, an examiner could still accidentally erase your real data while examining the device, which would be a shame.
    6. Re:No you have a choice. by JasonTik · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if you RTFC(onstitution), you will see that the fourth amendment does not use the word citizen. As such, his point is still valid.

    7. Re:No you have a choice. by thefirelane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      is it ok that a citizen loses his rights as soon as he encounters US borders? It seems the 4th amendment ought to protect you against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

      Sorry, but false. Look into Maritime law, that hasn't applied for hundreds of years. You can be stopped and held at gunpoint while your ship is searched. Same thing for entering the country. They also aren't liable for any damage caused, so they can disassemble your boat/car and say "hey, I guess there weren't any drugs, here's your parts back"

    8. Re:No you have a choice. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These court cases happened way before the current administration was though about and some were befor they were even born.

      Because they say something you don't agree with doesn't mean that they are wrong or prejudices by politics. It typically means that you are wrong or misguided. Nothing to get upset about, we learn and move on.

    9. Re:No you have a choice. by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is fact more than a search it is confiscation. The loss of the use of your computer hardware for an extended period. Do your buy a replacement upon the basis that the US government will steal it and never return it or they demand you fly back to the country to pick up the laptop at a greater cost than the laptop.

      Juts another little egotistical power trip for pencil dick thugs, don't like your attitude, your appearance, your accent or your colour, and the dick heads steal your laptop and cost you a couple of thousand dollars.

      So how long before the arse holes wake up about modern phones and their gigabyte storage capacity, and start stealing those to fullfill their petty power trips.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. new laptops too? by rossdee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are they going to check all the new laptops shipped from China too? Theres probably spyware, malware etc on their hard drives Anyway its gpoing to mean long lines at the security checkpoints at airports as federal employees check out business travellers pron colledtions.

  7. A better analogy... by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Rummaging through a computer's hard drive, the government says, is no different from looking through a suitcase. Wouldn't a more apt analogy be "can border security read all the paper documents a person is carrying?" Is it legal for border security to open every binder of notes, and open every letter on your person, including medical records, bank statements, things marked "private" or "confidential" or "top secret"?

    I think the answer is: no, that's not allowed. They are allowed to search in order to satisfy themselves that it is a book/document and not something nefarious (bomb, contraband, etc.)... but beyond that they cannot go rummaging through any data you happen to be carrying on your person.

    By analogy, I would expect that physically inspecting a laptop (to make sure it's not hiding anything nefarious) is okay, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to start scanning through the data on it.
    1. Re:A better analogy... by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      curious are they going to search every MP3 player, every Thumb drive, every floppy disc, or cd that enter's the country?

      If I wanted to get information beyond the border without It being noticed, a partitioned MP3 player HD hiding an encrypted volume.

      The MP3 player plays just fine, but only a physical search by a trained IT person would even notice that something was wrong. especially if I "upgraded" an old 20gb model with a 40 or 80 gb hard drive, and partitioned it in such a way as to leave 20gb for the player, and the rest was hidden from view, unless inserted into another computer.

      I just thought of that reading these responses.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  8. 4th Amendment by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess if they're going to ignore the 4th Amendment when it comes to suitcases, they might as well ignore it when it comes to laptops. After all, who is to say what it means for "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"

  9. I'm holding this airplane hostage with excel! by pwnies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that software doesn't pose a "threat to national security" if it's transfered on an airplane. Sure they may say that "We want to keep hacker software and naughty viruses out!", which is ginger and all, but there's this one new thing, maybe you've heard of it TSA - called the internet. So really I have to ask why do they need to search peoples hard drives? The people could easily just leave their data at home or on a remote server and transfer it to their laptops once they land.

    On the subject of encrypted data, here's an interesting question, what if the user doesn't have the key (e.g. a messenger)? Do they have to delete that data? And how do they know it's entirely deleted? Do they run Nuke and Boot on the user's hard drive?

    It seems to me this is just a classic case of political "Lets make laws on things that we don't understand and scare us".

  10. Re:By that logic... by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can they inspect every packet that enters (or exits) the US? Does the physical medium have to be in transit?
    Answer: yes
  11. It's tricky by hibiki_r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A laptop can be used to carry contraband. Pirated software. Nuclear secrets. What makes it different from opening a suitcase?

    There's a few things that make it different. First, by opening a suitcase and performing a cursory inspection, an official doesn't read every notebook and letter the traveler is carrying. A customs official that takes a computer for inspection can do all kinds of unreasonable things to it, and there's little that can be done about it. There's also the problem of figuring out what is illegal: Should a traveler prove that every mp3 he is carrying was ripped legally? Should we have to carry the licenses of all commercial software? It'd be crazy.

    And finally, there's the fact that anyone smuggling software will just get an internet connection and send it across through the wire.

  12. What are they looking for? by Scotman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is "illegal" on a laptop that comes into the country? I can understand stuff like plans for a bomb or correspondence with a terrorist group. But that has to be an extreme. So what else are they looking for?

    1. Re:What are they looking for? by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or just travel with an old broken laptop and when he asks you to boot it, ask the guy to fix it first. - "but officer, I'm taking it to Best Buy for repair!?" I find traveling with sex toys in your carry on is a great way to get searches to end quickly.

      -Rick
      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:What are they looking for? by Xinef+Jyinaer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Better yet, if you need to keep them from snooping around on it, just unhook the mobo from the PSU.

      --
      Some days I just get bored and Troll post all the memes I can think of...
    3. Re:What are they looking for? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better yet, if you need to keep them from snooping around on it, just unhook the mobo from the PSU.

      So let me get this straight.

      Your suggestion is to go through security in an airport with a laptop which has been intentionally sabotaged such that it cannot be turned on without a screwdriver.

      So when they say "Can you switch this on please, sir", you're going to have to either refuse or ask for a screwdriver (because I strongly doubt you'll be allowed to carry one).

      That sounds like an extremely good way to have your laptop confiscated and destroyed in a controlled explosion, and for you to spend some years in prison.

  13. Lessons by Thansal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "There are all sorts of lessons in these cases. One is that the border seems be a privacy-free zone. A second is that encryption programs work. A third is that you should keep your password to yourself. And the most important is that you should leave your laptop at home."

    Don't forget the one about not being a pedo, I mean, I know, it isn't that obvious, but still, just in case you didn't catch it, don't be a damn pedo.

    Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about boarder inspections. Yes, they are important to some degree (it IS illegal to traffic in certain things). However, they should also have a good REASON to search you.

    If we accept them doing random stops and searches (I honestly don't know how I feel about this), or if they have good reason to stop and search you, then I have no problem with them searching your laptop as well. They obviously should not keep records of ANYTHING found in there (unless breaking a specific law), however searching a laptop when you are already searching the person/car for somethign that likely could be found on the laptop? why not?

    All in all, I dono. It seems a slippery slope problem, but it also seems relatively reasonable (Again, assuming there is a good reason for the search in the first place)

    --
    Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
  14. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I tend to store my data in binary on magnetic platters, where it is completely unreadable by humans using plain sight in a simple search.

  15. New plan for border agents... by soulsteal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Folder on desktop named "Kiddie pics?" Check.

    Thousands of JPGs within? Check.

    All JPGs are hello.jpg? Checkmate.

    1. Re:New plan for border agents... by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Folder on desktop named "Kiddie pics?" Check.

      After they see the "kiddie pics" folder, you get segregated. Now sit on your ass for a couple hours while they call a higher level agent to OPEN the folder.

      "Thousands of JPGs within? Check."

      Sit through another couple of hours of interrogation, trying to get you to reveal what's in the folder. Then they call a computer forensics "expert" to analyze the files.

      "All JPGs are hello.jpg? Checkmate"

      They spend another few hours trying to determine if the Goatse Guy is under 16. Then they call in a higher level computer forensics "expert" to analyze the files for steganography.

      By that time, you may as well BE the Goatse Guy - you are about as fucked as you are ever going to get.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:New plan for border agents... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reasonable suspicion that person has explored the possibility of hiding something up his anus? Check.

      Rubber glove? Check.

      Any way to refuse? Checkmate.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  16. How I do it... by WED+Fan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I encode all my dangerous stuff with everyday words and string them into mundane sentances disguised as personal communication.

    There, everything you need to construct your own death star is in the line above. Oh, and some extra information is hidden in this line about exhaust ports. Damn, I just realized, my encoding for "exhaust ports" renders as "exhaust ports". Well, back to the drawing board.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:How I do it... by netruner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry about the exhaust ports - anything they would use in a large scale assault would never be in position to target them. Besides, think of all the labor, parts and rework expense that can be avoided by leaving them as they are.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    2. Re:How I do it... by apt142 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It'd cost you parts (box of nails and some chicken wire) and labor (1 extremely under-paid mech droid).

      If you skipped lunch, you could probably pay for it.

      --
      Star Pirates
    3. Re:How I do it... by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn, I just realized, my encoding for "exhaust ports" renders as "exhaust ports".

      Welcome to the future: ROT-26 encryption. Too bad most Slashdot lamers are still using their old PGP keys.

  17. I guess they don't like tourism revenue by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all, they keep giving us foreigners more and more reasons to avoid the US and spend our money elsewhere.

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  18. Four words: by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Funny

    thumb drive
    encryption
    orifice

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  19. Not about rights, but rather usefulness by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see the court's argument, and I suppose it really isn't any different, since you're crossing a border. But what's the point? I've heard there's actually a big network that extends internationally outside the United States (an "inter-net" if you will) that makes data transfers into the US without physical hard disks fairly easy. If this is truly the case, wouldn't anything "contraband" be sent via that? (I mean, assuming it's not too difficult to get an account on this network.)

  20. Just create a dummy account? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think you'd need to encrypt anything. Your laptop won't be on when they begin their inspection, right? So add another account that you fully cooperate with them with that has access to nothing, and maybe has some default pictures and stuff for them to browse around with. Configure login script to fix whatever they screw up on that account on each login. Log into *that* one for them to do their probing. They won't have any way of knowing it isn't your main account. Heck, make that a nice self-healing account that friends can use. Bonus!

    If you assume somewhat more sophisticated inspectors, you may want to put what can be construed as nefarious software (nmap, tcpdump, nessus, kismet, etc) in a more secure than normal place.

    Now, if you expect the thing to be confiscated, that is a different story.

  21. What government would do if they could by alextheseal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a perfect example of the government tipping their hand. Every time they say, trust us with your privacy, think back to what they do when they have no constrains.

  22. Johnny Mnemonic by mattr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally a plausible reason why JM is conceivable.

  23. No, it's worse than that by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, it's not "opening a sealed envelope". Envelopes can contain toxic chemicals, weapons, etc. Computers only hold information. The difference is that they're now policing thought.

  24. Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can they ask to see the contents of a company laptop? If that information is proprietary you have every right to deny them access as an employee or face legal liability for showing others that information. Arguably, they have no right to a laptop that isn't yours or viewing information that you do not have the right to show them; they would need to get a release from the company in order to view that data.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Foofoobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oooh... good point. In some case the old 'diplomatic immunity' would get you through those checkpoints but other workers would not be so lucky. Yeah this is stupd in so many ways. We are just descending into a Hitler-esque nightmare (aka George Bush wet dream) more and more.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can they ask to see the contents of a company laptop? If that information is proprietary you have every right to deny them access as an employee or face legal liability for showing others that information.

      The US Customs agency is operating under the mandate that they can detain you and/or inspect you arbitrarily, and that you have no legal recourse against it.

      You used to be able to say "I withdraw my petition to enter your country" and they'd just basically ship you back. Now, they don't really care. Gonzales basically gave them a legal opinion that says you, as a foreign national, have no legal protections or expectation of privacy. I'm not sure of the specifics, but at one point, they said "we can do anything we like".

      Arguably, they have no right to a laptop that isn't yours or viewing information that you do not have the right to show them; they would need to get a release from the company in order to view that data.

      Refusing to give them the information on the grounds of a NDA will mean nothing to them. They'll jail you if they want to. They are not bound by your NDA, and they can compel you to answer whatever they ask or open what they request.

      I wouldn't be willing to try to stand behind an NDA with my company at a US border -- but then again, I don't plan on presenting myself to one any more. Over the last few years, I have decided that there really isn't a compelling enough reason to travel to the US. The level of draconian crap and complete loss of rights which can ensue is just not worth the exposure or the risk.

      It gets echoed a lot here on Slashdot, but an awful lot of people simply will not travel to the US again.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work in the hard drive industry and end up traveling to China quite a bit. We have to take our gear (laptop, scope, everything down to pens and pencils and paper). While customs is a pain in the ass (it took me 6 months to get my scope back), its much less expensive than dropping 80 G's to buy a new scope + laptop for me while I'm there. Luckily, there is a really simple way to avoid any issues with giving up sensitive data, leave it all on the company intranet, while the customs officials/border folks might have a legitimate interest in seeing whats on my hard drive, they certainly have no business making me SSL into a private network.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    4. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by AIkill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to agree with you on this in terms of US Customs. But, personally, I think that in the end, US Customs will be baned from searching laptops that are owned by a corporation.

      My reasoning:

      If customs starts searching corporate laptops, they naturally will be able to view data that the corporation will most likely want to keep secret. Additionally, in some cases, the corporate agent will have to reveal the password and encryption key for the laptop and data, which would let the customs agent know what kind and what pattern of security the corporation uses. Finally, the delays caused by the searching of the data on the laptop could cause problems for the corporate agent.

      In the end, the corporation will get ticked of and try and get their lobbyists to make it so that searches of that nature cannot be done to corporations. After all, its the corporations that usually provide the campaign funds for the various government offices, so what the corporations want, the corporations get.

      --
      Angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night- Ginsber
    5. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gonzales is **NOT** the law. Only the law decides that, not Gonzales.

      Oh, we all know that.

      However, that hasn't stopped Bush et al from doing things which are illegal but that they have a legal opinion that it is legal. The distinction is, in practice, apparently irrelevant in terms of what the White House does.

      I mean ... suspension of Habeus Corpus; saying that White House staff doesn't need to respond to a congressional subpoena due to "executive privilege"; sending Whitehouse e-mail from Republican Party e-mail addresses; kidnapping foreign nationals in foreign countries; extra-ordinary renditions (ie torture) to a third country; performing warrantless wiretaps and then shielding the phone companies who helped you do it from court cases ... all of these things are illegal and haven't been decided upon by 'the law'. It hasn't stopped it from happening. Let's face it, Congress isn't holding them to account for doing it. The law sure isn't coming along to set them right.

      There's all sorts of things the administration is doing that are based off their opinion that what they're doing is legal. To date, the actual legality of any of this stuff hasn't been established, nor has that stopped them.

      Bush seems to believe that whatever he decides to do under his powers as a "war time president" is fully covered by executive privilege and that nobody has recourse to stop him. What's your law doing about that? From outside, I'd say not a damned thing.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? by telso · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You used to be able to say "I withdraw my petition to enter your country" and they'd just basically ship you back.Now, they don't really care.
      This actually gives you a good reason to travel to the US through Canada. From the Preclearance Act (which is summarised on some signs in Canadian airport preclearance areas):

      10. (1) Every traveller has the right, at any stage of the preclearance process, to leave a preclearance area without departing for the United States, unless a preclearance officer informs the traveller that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the traveller has committed an offence under section 33 or 34. [These sections say you can't lie to or obstruct a preclearance officer in the execution of the officer's duties.]
      There are many other protections the act gives, including that if you're detained you must be transferred to a Canadian officer or released if asked, that the US government is not immune from liability, and protection of personal information, among other things. And once you're through customs, they still can't do anything more to you, until you arrive in US airspace (or, more likely, land), after which you, I would assume, have the protections of the US Constitution. IANAL.
  25. they can stick theyre hand up your butt by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they can stick theyre hand up your butt, why would you be worried about your laptop. your laptop won't cry in the shower to boy george after it's violating probing.

  26. Terminal A? by delire · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a heavy terminal user I long since lost interest in running a desktop environment. This has become a problem when I travel internationally, something I do very often.

    On two separate occassions I've been asked to boot my machine. On both occassions the security officials became quite disturbed when they saw a text only boot sequence. One asked me to turn the machine off immediately and after 30 minutes I was able to explain what was on my computer in a way they liked. The second incident was worse. Once my laptop had come out of suspend-to-RAM the security guy demanded "Log into your computer please". On seeing a single maximised xterm he became nervous. He held me until an official came down from upstairs, who promptly laughed warmly and said "It's unix. It's OK".

    I know a couple of other people that have been in very similar situations.

    These days I have a session manager such that I can boot into a clean GNOME desktop should such a situation arise, complete with soothing coastal background image.

    The rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day. Nearly as bizarre as the giant liquids disposal vat at security check: "Please mix your bomb ingredients in this packed airport instead of on the plane. Thankyou."

    1. Re:Terminal A? by archont · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn. If I, for whatever reason, will be forced to visit the US, I'll make a custom boot sequence on my laptop. It'd go something like this: Primer.. Green PETN charge (50g).. Green VX gas pressure.. Green Anti-tampering.. Green Along with a hollywood-stylized bomb counter with some arabic text and a password box "Type password to deactivate". If I wouldn't die from being tasered I'd probably die from laughter.

    2. Re:Terminal A? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Funny
      The rationale for having me boot my computer apparently was that it may be a bomb, not that my contents might be suspicious. The logic of having me sit in front of them and power on a bomb just to find out if it is, in fact, a bomb still escapes me to this day.

      Simple. If your computer switches on and acts as a computer should, then it's clearly not a bomb. There is absolutely no way to replace the hard drive with a miniature solid-state device running a basic OS install, and the battery with a much smaller one sacrificing battery life for extra room, and use the space saved for a big lump of Semtex to be triggered by echo detonate > /dev/bomb. This is entirely impossible. Which is fortunate, because otherwise they'd have to ban laptops on flights, and that would upset the rich.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Terminal A? by thbb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously. US customs are among the most paranoid bureaucrats on earth.

      I know of a respectable French old lady in her 60's who is banned from traveling to the US.

      Her crime ? At the customs inspection, as the officer checked her purse, she inconspicuously
      hushered "boom" (it was in 2002).

      She was sent back to France on the next flight after 24h in custody.

  27. The 4th does not apply to border searches by sirwired · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 4th amendment does not apply to searches at the border, and it never has. Throughout modern history, every country in the world (the U.S. included) has reserved the right to search anything and everything entering the country, save diplomatic pouches.

    The 4th amendment only covers "unreasonable" search and seizure. Border searches are considered reasonable, and therefore require no warrant. This was formally codified by the 1st Congress (thank you Findlaw), who could be assumed to know the intentions of the founding fathers. More intrusive operations over and above a cursory search (such as X-Rays, or I supposed computer checks) only require "reasonable suspicion", as opposed to the more strict "probable cause".

    The current version of the law states:
    19 USC 1581:
    (a) Customs officers
    Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel
    or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs
    waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area
    established under the Anti-Smuggling Act [19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.], or at
    any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and
    examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine,
    inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any
    person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and
    stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel
    compliance.

    I would think a search of the hard drive falls well within a "package".

    SirWired

    1. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His point is technically correct in the sense that TSA does not believe in privacy even on domestic flights. Have you had a TSA note left in your suitcase letting you know that your bags were searched without your permission, without a warrant, without your supervision, and mostly certainly not in a discrete manner during domestic travel? I have.

      Of course, I am sure it is legal because somewhere, buried in the 4 pt. text, is a clause stating that you implicitly consent to your bags being searched simply because you bought a plane ticket. Much like holding a Florida driver's license means you implicitly consent to a sobriety test at any time. I am sure it will not be long before they are searching domestic travelers' hard drives. After all, Oklahoma City was domestic terrorism. Terror is everywhere.

      The cool thing is, though, you can encrypt your hard drive. You cannot encrypt your suitcase. And, like another poster said, you can always store your sensitive data on an iPod, a thumb drive, etc. That is the major problem with organizations like TSA and Customs that people do not seem to understand. They are always fighting a losing battle against people that are way ahead of them.

      --
      IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
    2. Re:The 4th does not apply to border searches by a1englishman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recently took a trip back to the United Kingdom, via France. At no point during that journey did customs go through all my belongings, and ask me to fill in some form that disclosed how much stuff I was bringing back. I come back to the States, and it's like the Spanish Inquisition. It's like the rest of the West has moved on, yet over here, we're dwelling in the dark ages. Did you say "Witch?"

  28. You're doing it the hard way. by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I wanted to get information across the border without being noticed, I'd put it on an FTP site and email the link and login info to myself, to a webmail account that I can access anywhere merely by memorizing the username and password. No need to even have the POP3 access info on the laptop, let alone the "incriminating data".

    In fact if transporting data is your only reason for entering the country, just upload the nefarious data to one of the free FTP sites, and email the link to your partners-in-crime. Why risk being caught at the border??

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:You're doing it the hard way. by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Email the link? Put the link on tinyurl and remember the 5 last characters.

      That would still leave a trail directly to you.

      There is a better wau. Usenet. Encrypt a file into (a series of) pictures with something like steghide. Post the pictures to any (relevant) binary newsgroup.

      Delivery is done by the Usenet system, so there is NO link between the sender and the reciever. Encryption is done with gpg, so no real worries that even if people see there is something in it that they will be able to read it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  29. well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I sure get tired of the fools who think international borders should be treated as carelessly as the border between Nevada and California. I can only think they've lived so long in a world that seems totally harmless, like trust-fund babies who've never left the crime-free gated community, that they now naively think there's just no more evil left in the world. So they can't see all this fuss about actually, you know, making sure that folks coming into the country are not up to seriously bad things.

    They remind me a bit of the similar folks who fuss about the dangers of vaccines or chlorine in the water supply, because they've lived in a world with powerful antibiotics so long they no longer really believe that deadly bacteria exist and can kill you dead without some basic precautions at the similar "border" between one's body and the outside world.

    1. Re:well said by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that this is an exceptionally stupid approach whose only justification is to allow bureaucrats to exert power. It doesn't make anyone, anywhere in the world, any safer. It does confiscate some people's laptops...and possibly the guards take possession of some of them. Or maybe not. (Evidence lockers have been known to lose valuable evidence which isn't of any use for a trial.)

      It's so wrong-headed that I can't think of any intelligible purpose that it serves, other than to keep people subservient by letting them see that they could be inconvenienced far more than they are. (I.e., psychological warfare of the government against it's citizenry.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  30. SmartCard by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is possible to encrypt the contents of the hard drive using a SmartCard, then mail the SmartCard to your destination in advance of your border crossing. By doing so, it would be absolutely impossible* for you to give them access to your data. And while they may have the legal authority to search your laptop at the border, they do NOT have the authority to break in to your destination address and take the SmartCard (without probable cause, warrant, etc.).

    * For the cryptographers and pedants in the crowd, feel free to substitute the word "infeasible."

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:SmartCard by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is possible to encrypt the contents of the hard drive using a SmartCard, then mail the SmartCard to your destination in advance of your border crossing. By doing so, it would be absolutely impossible* for you to give them access to your data. And while they may have the legal authority to search your laptop at the border, they do NOT have the authority to break in to your destination address and take the SmartCard (without probable cause, warrant, etc.).


      No. But if I'm understanding some other posters here, they DO have the authority to simply keep your laptop. That seems to be the problem with most of these "solutions": no, the Feds don't get to see your data. But you're out maybe $1500 worth of laptop that you'll never see again.

      Chris Mattern
    2. Re:SmartCard by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, follow some of the links in other posts. They have discretion to confiscate almost anything. Technically, it's still yours; DHS is supposed to give it back to you when their investigation is complete or the laptop is no longer required for the investigation. There is, however, no time limit on how long DHS can take doing this. One of the articles linked to in this thread reports a woman's been waiting for over a year with still no indication of when they'll give it back.

      Chris Mattern

    3. Re:SmartCard by greenrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does travel insurance cover this confiscation?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
  31. Ridiculous by poptones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are not looking for passwords to nuclear reactor equipment - the clowns at the border probably wouldn't recognize such lists unless they were marked "passwords to nuclear reactor equipment." They're not even looking for bootlegged movies because they'd be detaining damn near everyone with a laptop.

    No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

    It's encouraging to see ONE judge in this country got it right - _personal_ computers are an extension of our mind and deserve the utmost protection.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

      Tell that to the thousands of children who are victimized making said 'pix'. I could see someone arguing against this as an intrusive search and you and I might agree on those points, but that comment was plain idiotic. Pedophilia is real and dangerous.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are not looking for passwords to nuclear reactor equipment - the clowns at the border probably wouldn't recognize such lists unless they were marked "passwords to nuclear reactor equipment." They're not even looking for bootlegged movies because they'd be detaining damn near everyone with a laptop.

      No, they are pretty much just looking for naughty pix of little kids - that's it. And much as someone might find that offensive, sorry it just aint "dangerous."

      Another thing it ain't is "gonna accomplish much of anything."

      Anyone who really thinks some bored customs/security folks are going to be able to competently identify the contents of, say, a 500GB drive with two hundred thousand files on it is smoking something. What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named? People like the one in TFA aside, they're not likely to find much doing this unless they're willing to take their sweet time holding someone while they fine-tooth-comb their computer to do so. For anything resembling a reasonable-length search at customs, any contraband's either going to be glaringly obvious to a non-expert who's going through the motions, or it won't show up at all.

      As one of the comments in the article says, this is just more fishing in the dark, like no-fly-lists or people demanding I explain why I'm wearing boots every time I fly in the winter.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Ridiculous by blueskies · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so dangerous unless you're one of the little kids.
      uh, it's still not dangerous. Unless your Amish and realize that having your picture taken steals your SOUL!!!
    4. Re:Ridiculous by mfnickster · · Score: 2

      Here is a picture of a murder being committed - Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald.

      Was Oswald harmed by the photographer?

      Was Oswald harmed by you looking at the photograph?

      Was Oswald harmed by the publishers who profited from the sales of millions of books containing this photo.

      No. Oswald was harmed by Jack Ruby (and for that matter, anyone Ruby might have been working for). A photograph of a crime is not a crime.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    5. Re:Ridiculous by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What're they going to do? Haul the laptops off someplace and spend an afternoon checking every directory and making sure the files are really what they're named?

      No, what will happen is some asshole tech company will sell the Feds on an "Anti-Terrorism Border-Defense Cyberscanning System". They'll just pull the drive out of your laptop, drop it into this gadget, and and let it do the fishing automatically while-you-wait. If it comes up with a red flag (say, potential kiddie-porn, nuclear secrets or whatever) you get cavity-searched and are never heard from again.

      There's a couple billion to be made right there, I'd say. All you have to do to make it work is teach the guards how to rip a drive out of a laptop without static-zapping it.

      Okay, so that's a stumbling block.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  32. Re:one workaround by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Store your sensitive information in a truecrypt volume on your camera's SD card. Name the truecrypt volume DSCINDEX.TOC if you want a bit more security. In order for anyone to find the data, they'd have to:

    1. remove your SD card from your digital camera and stick it in a computer,
    2. notice that you have a 2GB index file,
    3. recognize (somehow) that it is a truecrypt volume,
    4. get you to enter the password that opens the hidden volume instead of the default innocuous volume.

  33. That's the point. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The constitution, 4th amendment included, applies to all people, not just citizens, on U.S. soil and that includes the soil beneath the customs hall.

    Were that not the case, we'd have little need for N379P.

  34. I can't power up the laptop ... by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the first TSA guy took the battery. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/28/1944208

  35. Re:If you can search a suitcase... by erc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Carroll Doctrine (aka the "automobile exception", aka Carroll v. US) says that although they can seize a locked container in transit, they can't search it without a warrant. If no warrant is forthcoming, they have to return the locked container unsearched - they can't destroy it or confiscate it. There have been plenty of court cases since (California v. Acevedo, US v. Chadwick, US v. Ross, Chambers v. Maroney, et. al.) that have clearly established the rights of "persons" (as opposed to merely "citizens") under the Fourth Amendment. And even though the USSC has said that people crossing into the US have a diminished expectation of privacy and border guards have expanded powers of search and seizure because of the exigent nature of the circumstances surrounding a border crossing (in particular, no probable cause is needed before a search), there still is no support as far as I've been able to find for the warrantless search of a locked container absent any sort of either probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. It follows that the government can search my hard drive without a warrant at a border crossing, but what happens when they happen across that TOPSECRET encrypted folder?

    It's going to interesting the first time one of these cases reaches the USSC. What happens if I encrypt my data with AES 256 (certified for TOP SECRET data), I get stopped at the border, and I refuse to give up my encryption key? Since I'm a citizen, they can't deny me entry, they can't hold me until I give up my key, and they can't decrypt the data. An interesting situation. As a former police officer, I know how I'd handle the situation without breaking the law and without holding the subject in jail, but I doubt that most DHS folks would have that much creative imagination.

    --
    -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
  36. Not just US by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Canadian customs and immigration checked through my laptop also. In fact, I say also but US customs and immigration has never actually checked the contents of my hard drive as Canadian customs did but they have made sure it turns on and isn't a bomb instead however.

    I've never taken my laptop round Europe with me so I can't really give any experience of other customs. I've not actually had British customs itself check my laptop at all though, simply putting it through the scanner in it's case was enough for them although I'd imagine they may check it if I was coming into the country as a foreign national or if I seemed slightly more dodgy!

  37. Re:No by knight24k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't they can demand that you provide a key, because that is self-incrimination

    The article specifically references the issue of the prosecutors demanding the key.
    They can demand all they want. Police can also demand that you confess to all the crimes they know you are guilty of as well. That doesn't mean they have the authority to force you to do so. They can't force you to do anything that violates either the 5th or the 4th Amendments.

    Now should they get a warrant from a judge, then matters become a little more shaky. They could argue that the laptop is locked and that you are in contempt by refusing to unlock it for search as ordered by the court the same as they would do for someone refusing to unlock a building or safe, etc. That is where a good encryption software comes in. Unless they can prove that the drive is encrypted, that you know it is encrypted and you are in possession of said keys to decrypt it. They get nowhere.

    Citizens can push this issue since they can't exactly refuse them entry. Visitors legally can do the same, but being refused entry can have ramifications as others have mentioned previously. IMO they are using that last item as a method to coerce disclosure of laptop contents even though they have no legal grounds to demand the same. Normal caveat - IANAL.
  38. Good to know this by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now, next time I visit the States, I know how to be prepared. I will create folders like "goatsePr0n", "My Cunning Plan to Drop a Bomb On George W. Bush", and "Allahu Akbar" . . . and fill them with pictures of Hello Kitty.

  39. Re:Ridiculous, so then one way ALL can NIX by UseTheSource · · Score: 2, Funny

    this stupid search mandate is to teach ALL (even the perps) to put the data on an SD or mini-SD card

    Next up, cavity searches at customs checkpoints for flash drives hidden on one's person.

    --
    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
    "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
  40. You will be killed for your insolence by thegnu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lord Vader does not skip lunch, fool!
    *CTHHHHK* ...
    *KHHHHH* ...
    *CTHHHHK* ...
    *KHHHHH*

    Now bring me my burrito!

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
    1. Re:You will be killed for your insolence by mfnickster · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I will have the penne a la arabiata... No, I do not need a tray to kill you. I can kill you without a tray!"

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  41. Idiotic? Try this... by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Molesting a child is a harmful act. So is molesting and adult.

    Images of child molestation are not child molestation. Looking at an image of child molestation no more makes one a molester than does watching bank robbery footage make one a bank robber.

    And pedophilia may be real, but its no more "dangerous" than homosexuality or heterosexuality. We all have feelings every day it would be bad to act upon - most of us are rational enough to avoid doing the wrong thing. Assuming all "pedophiles" (which, in this society, would mean pretty much any male who has ever looked at a 15 year old and thought "wow that's hot") are simply out of control, irrational animals unable to control their actions is the very height of idiocy.

  42. 4th Ammedment is fine... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable [emphasis mine -mi] searches and seizures

    Kinda vague, is not it? What's reasonable? Up to the courts, really...

    And the courts have determined, that such "administrative searches" are Ok "as long as they are "conducted as part of a scheme that has as its purpose something "other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions."

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  43. This is going to be worse than ISP tech support by kjkeefe · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see it now...

    "Please power on your laptop, sir"

    *click*

    "Sir, I'm sorry to inform you that this border does not support linux. You will have to return to your place of origin until such time that you install the latest version of Windows Vista Ultimate, Now With Extra Neato Security! (tm)."

    /facepalm

    My favorite was the time the Linksys tech support person told me that my router doesn't support linux. To which I responded, "The router is RUNNING linux, you know-nothing dweeb!" That call was not very productive...

    --
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
  44. Going down the drain.... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our rights are going down the drain. We, in the United States, seems to slowly going by the way of an state. What the heck is the fourth Amendment doing? I hate child porn but there are other methods of getting these people. If this occurs there will be sudden stop of all business travel and it will make the flight stoppage after 9/11 look small. Not every person has porn on their laptops but definitely have important information on those laptops and confiscating these laptops for no good reason will not help.

  45. I got one word.. by dementedWabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Guantanamo. Where the rights of the world are pissed on en-masse. Nothing to see here folks..

  46. Slavery by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.

    Yet, they decided slaves weren't people. Nope, not hypocritical at all.