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.

50 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 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).

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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"
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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 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. 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. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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,"

  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.)

  11. 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.

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

    Finally a plausible reason why JM is conceivable.

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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...
  18. 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.
  19. 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

  20. 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?
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.