Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border

PizzaFace writes "U.S. Customs agents have long had broad authority to examine the things a person tries to bring into the country, to prevent the importation of contraband. The agents can conduct their searches without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. In recent years, Customs agents have begun using their authority to insist on copying data brought to the border on laptop computers, cell phones and other devices. The government claims that this intelligence-gathering by Customs is the same as looking in a suitcase. In response the EFF is filing a lawsuit attempting to force the government to reveal its policies on border searches. 'The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts. The lawsuit was inspired by some two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics.'"

24 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously.. by log0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse.

    1. Re:Seriously.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google "boiling a frog". It might provide some insight as to why this line of thinking is dangerous.

    2. Re:Seriously.. by eepok · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Comparing a bad situation to something worse in no means negates or diminishes the badness of the original situation. By your suggested logic, you would never get a raise because there are still people who make less money than you... or are pressed into labor.

      And yes, this is one of the more overt practices of a police state. It's even more worrisome when people forget that the very philosophical and documented building blocks of the nation is a piece of paper that restricts the federal government from doing exactly what this article reports:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


      This cannot be suspended except under marshal law and I've missed that memo if it's been announced. When the government stops recognizing their limitations and begins using forms of law enforcement and fear-mongering to bypass those limitation, then it's most definitely a police state.
    3. Re:Seriously.. by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with your sentiment we must remember that a police state rarely happens over night. It's a slow process that is initiated by the people. Folks seem to have forgotten that they ned to protect their own rights, not ask the government to do it for them...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    4. Re:Seriously.. by visualight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      STOP.

      Almost every time an injustice is reported, there's someone to point out how much worse it is some place else, as if that makes everything ok.

      If I posted counter examples of countries where people have more freedoms and used that to back up a claim of injustice here, you would probably counter with something like "so move there then..."

      BULLSHIT

      The proper response to this crap is to complain loudly, in court if possible, in the streets if not. When someone does so, you cheer them on, support them. Sarcastic comments like yours are "un-american".

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    5. Re:Seriously.. by Pyrrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still, it's better than living in Iran and Afghanistan.

      I'm really tired of hearing this argument. I'm an american, I love my country but I see things wrong with it and I know it could be improved.
      Yes, it's better here than it is in Iran. You know what? That's not good enough. I'd like to think that our country is being held to a higher standard than "better than Iran and Afghanistan."

    6. Re:Seriously.. by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Yeah we are so oppressed here,"
      I guess that's the silver lining. We aren't the _worst_ country in the world yet and aren't likely to be the worst country in the world anytime soon. If that and a shiny piece of string keep you happy.....

      Actually, in terms of the number of people in jail, which is probably a good way to gauge oppression, you are #1.

      Welcome to the 37-year "War on Drugs", which so far has cost more than any other war except WW2. Pretty stupid waging a war against your own citizens - sort of like pushing on a string.

    7. Re:Seriously.. by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current doctrine is focused on the keyword, "unreasonable."

      Unfortunately, it's all too easy to turn "unreasonable" into "reasonable" by way of many small "reasonable" steps over time.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    8. Re:Seriously.. by corbettw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No kidding. Once we can safely say "It's better here than Ireland or Sweden", then it will be a compelling argument. The Soviet Union was better in many ways than Iran or Afghanistan, but no one thinks of the USSR as a bastion of freedom and democracy.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    9. Re:Seriously.. by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Regardless the idea of the government slowly "turning up the heat" on it's citizens still holds. I guess that makes a lot of us dumber than frogs right? ;-)"

      Only if you really believe that we're in the midst of a gradual erosion of rights that defies historical precident in American society.

      If you apply a little historical perspective, you'll find that these issues move back and forth over time, and that to a large extent a seletive focus on the negative combined with recent increases in the flow of information have created an illusion of a slow, steady march toward oppression. In truth I'd say the long-term trends have been positive.

      Not to say that we shouldn't question each and every increase in authority that government tries to claim for itself -- we should. But this "boil a frog" meme is nothing but tired, lame, non-productive alarmism -- on top of the fact that once you realize the underlying premise of the analogy is false, it starts sounding stupid.

      Should the border officials be allowed to copy data? Actually, maybe so. Crosing national borders isn't like moving about the streets freely; the search and seizure rules have always been different at the border than during, say, a routine traffic stop (and probably should remain so, though certainly that's a different debate altogether).

      If you believe that customs should be able to search for contraband and/or undeclared items upon which import taxes would be levied, then it is inconsistent to hold that they can't examine the data you're carrying. Of course, we expect them to follow certain rules -- just like we expect them not to confiscate your legally-owned-and-carried valuables.

      Does "examine" require them to "copy"? Maybe -- depends what they're looking for. That's where legitimate questions can start to arise. It should be clearly defined what their authority is, and it should be clearly defined what they are (and are not) allowed to do with any data they retain, how long and for what reasons they can retain it, etc.

      But that all has a lot more to do with controlling corruption amongst border officials than it has to do with unworkable cajun cooking techniques.

  2. Re:Corrupt by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, that's the case with the confiscations:

    "Hey nice laptop you got there. We need to hrm... search it... will have to take it down to forensics... we'll send it to you when we're done..." ... a year later...

    "Where's my laptop?"
    "Still searching..."
    "Can I get it back"
    "No! National security... 9/11... terrorists... child pornography... gay marriage... cats and dogs living together... enough key words yet?"

  3. before 1984... by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Presumably the prequel to 1984 would have shown Big Brother to be a charismatic politician preaching what a democratic majority wanted to hear. The need for security only reasonably matched the need to protect against Oceania's enemies... He was respected, and his election was a free choice. He then began to change little things slowly.

    Or...

    A prior honest President genuinely though the security measures were necessary. Then a corrupt Big Brother saw that the mechanisms created could be exploited and was attracted to power. He then said all the right things and got himself elected. The tools to control were already in place.

    Well, today in the US, and especially the UK, those mechanisms are already firmly in place. Even if your current government is not evil, there's nothing stopping the next one so being. With the new powers one can wield what evil person wouldn't want to gain control? One eventually will come to power. It is inevitable.

    It's probably already too late.

    1. Re:before 1984... by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. You missed my point... and you need to read some history.

      The mechanisms to control society are firmly in place. If you are evil, this has to be attractive. There WILL be evil people trying to get into power. Now, or soon.

      Now these evil people are not going to base their campaign on "hello, I'm evil, vote for me". They will SEEM to be perfect candidates. Just as Hitler did, just as Mussolini did, just as many other examples did.

      The difference is, right now, the infrastructure is already in place. Once in power you can be evil all you want and there's nothing to stop you, short of revolution -- which bearing in mind the obesity, alcohol dependency, and apathy of most US and UK citizens, won't be successful.

      Again, there WILL be evil people trying to get into power. The temptation is too great, government has far too much power. Those people will not seem evil. One of them will eventually succeed in gaining that power.

      Or foolishly, like the Germans in the 1930's you can assume everything will be fine and the ballot box is the voice of truth. The government is not the problem really, of course politicians are greedy and corrupt -- all of them. Always are, always have been, always will be. It is those who are accepting and trusting of them that are the real danger to society.

  4. Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant by Iowan41 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is also unconstitutional. But these days we are encouraged to snigger, and call 'nuts' the one candidate out of the pack who says that the federal government should be made to obey the Constitution.

  5. The simile doesn't fit... by TheOnlyJuztyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The government claims that this intelligence-gathering by Customs is the same as looking in a suitcase."
    I'm pretty sure copying data off of your laptop or blackberry would be more like looking in your suitcase and then confiscating everything in it. Which probably wouldn't fly with many folks.
  6. Re:Same as this? by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if the Supreme Court has agreed to this and the Customs agents are making copies "for security", then the Supreme Court has ruled that making a digital copy is not stealing. When customs searches my bag, they don't get to keep anything form it unless there is something legal there. SO if they are allowed to make a copy, and that doesn't count as seizure of my property, then my digital copy of some music or a movie isn't theft either because I didn't seize any property. I hope EFF uses this in an RIAA case. The best way to take on a bad policy like this is to apply it to as many things as possible. I wonder if I can make a copy of what is on the customs office computer, if having a digital copy isn't a seziure of property.

    --
    We are all just people.
  7. wtf by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from the privacy and civil rights concerns, this is seriously unacceptable to just about any company with trade secrets. What is the point of the most paranoid security policies on company notebooks for internationally traveling employees, if they can't cross the border without their sensitive data getting searched?

    Industrial espionage, including by the US, is a very real concern.

  8. Just how secure is their storage? by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't give my business partner access to all my files so now the border agents are demanding access to them. There's sensitive company information in the files. What's to stop some one from hacking their system and gaining access to my company's information? I keep certain machines off the internet to avoid any possibility of hacking, do they do the same? Let's say a border agent copies legally bought music from my MP3 player then posts it on the web, am I responsible since it was my responsibility to keep those files secure and off the net? There's a massive potential for abuse over and above the looking for embarassing photos on some one's hard drive. We aren't talking FBI or CIA here. Most agents are underpaid and poorly trained. There's still a lot of confusion about what's allowed on planes and there is a lot of abuse in body searches. If the agents are already getting their jollies from patting down well known actors then what are the odds they'll be digging through personal files looking for dirt?

  9. Re:pretty sad by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's pretty sad when Americans need to travel with blank laptops for fear of having their data seized by US border agents...

    Which also brings up the following line of questioning by border guards: "Why are you traveling with a blank laptop? You wouldn't keep a blank laptop around unless you had something to hide."

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  10. WTF? by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking for data being smuggled over the border? What a ridiculous idea...
    Who would go to the trouble of transporting data on physical media, when it can be transmitted over the internet?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  11. Same as looking in a suitcase?? by werelord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I remember correctly, Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned for 5 years, 4.5 of them pre-trial; 8 months of solitary confinement, for copying files "worth" 160k (actual value much less)..

    And now its "same as looking in a suitcase"??

    obviously "who" does it makes a difference.. The government has your best interests at heart, honestly!!

  12. Something is rotten... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So, by leaving and the wishing to re-enter the country, your constitutional rights are suspended? What if you go somewhere like a US Embassy (which is technically considered US soil and under US jurisdiction) in another country and get let in there? Does that re-instate your constitutional rights?

    Under what jurisdiction are these detention centers? I assume that, since you can be held without trial, access to an attorney, etc. without even having been accused of a crime (because if you are accused then they can just let you in and arrest you on the spot), the detention center must be somewhere outside of US jurisdiction in order for them to be able to strip you of rights that the Constitution and various laws and court cases forbid them to strip from you...

    Something doesn't smell right about all of that.

    The way I see it, there should be 2 choices: 1.) you are accused of committing a crime, they let you in, you are arrested, and then you get your day in court, or 2.) you are not accused of a crime so they let you and in and you are free to go. There really shouldn't be any middle ground there, if you are US citizen returning to the country.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  13. Please explain why that's flamebait? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is that flamebait? This isn't just searching for contraband, this is looking back through web history files, email and sensitive "thought data" without bothering with either probable cause or a warrant. Any reasonable person has a right to resent this type of intrusion, not to mention confiscating expensive equipment without due process.

    More frightening than the act itself is the attitude of creeping intrusiveness justified by people who went through the American educational system. I don't think anyone in the history of the world imagined themselves being part of an emerging police state. In almost every instance it was a gradual process where the principles were acting on some type of perceived imperative. The people involved believed they were justified. The GRU, the Stasi, the SS and a thousand organizations like them started with a social imperative.

    Don't think we'll ever be that bad? If there are no checks and balances, no oversight and no way to challenge over-reaching policy what's stopping us from getting there? There has to be a line even for terrorism. This far and no farther. Instead we keep kicking that can farther down the road.

    It's not the actual policy. It's not this little thing or that little thing, it's the attitude that the ends justify the means underlying each little step.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  14. Re:Boiling a frog? by webweave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The US government (as with any other government) is really good at shooting sitting ducks, but when it comes to elusive ferrets they are left behind."
    Like they can prevent someone like me, a 125lb. programmer with glasses from boarding a plane with a bottle of water but Osama, oh yea where's Osama?