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.'"
Police state anyone? Things are getting worse and worse.
I just have a question for any legal scholars or experts in this field:
Does the 5th ammendment apply if I have strong encryption on my laptop? Can I simply refuse to give them the passphrase, or will I end up in Gitmo?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
It's pretty sad when Americans need to travel with blank laptops for fear of having their data seized by US border agents; in the past, that sort of thing was necessary when traveling behind the iron curtain.
It's also pointless, given that data can be stored easily and encrypted on the Internet, on flash drives (some of which are tiny), or even hidden steganographically.
Backup a few of your CDs onto your laptop, and when Customs copies the data, tip off the RIAA. Let them fight with each other.
Obviously they're just trying to steal MP3s!
But it was confiscated.
Actually, that's the case with the confiscations:
... a year later...
"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..."
"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?"
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.
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.
Truecrypt:
1. There is no encrypted data, I just didn't format that partition yet.
2. There is no encrypted data, that file must be corrupt. What did you do to my computer?
3. Here's the encrypted data, it's a copy of my tax forms for 2006. There is no hidden partition.
Pick one.
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.
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.
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?
"Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself."
Then explain why you were checking all the Iranian sites. "Oh, the cable, of course. Please step over here sir."
If they CAN refuse you entry, what happens if the country they send you back to denies you re-entry? Do you just spend the rest of your life hopping back and forth on planes until someone gives in?
I honestly, don't see how they could deny entry to a US citizen, for any reason. Can someone please clarify?
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
And then the RIAA and MPAA will demand that "illegal content" be stopped.
Every special interest group that can tie their interests to computer data will want in after that.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've been subjected to this myself.
I live in San Diego, about 10 miles from the Mexico boarder. A lot of San Diegans, including myself, go down there all the time for clubs and cheap shopping. On the way back to the US, I've got about a 5% chance of being stopped and taken to Secondary Inspection-- I've been in Secondary 5 times in the past 5 years. The first agent who you speak to when going through the normal process can flag you to be in Secondary if he thinks something is suspicious or out of order.
Usually Secondary just involves a more detailed search of my car and 30 minutes of sitting in a waiting room with a bunch of Mexicans. One time in Secondary was quite different. In this case, the first guy asked me where I went in Mexico on this trip. I couldn't pronounce the name (Via Bueneventeura in Chapultapec, Tijuana), and I guess he thought I was making it up or telling him a story. He put a note on my windshield and directed me towards Secondary.
For some reason this particular Customs agent in Secondary didn't believe that I am who I said I am. He kept asking me why I would go to a foreign country without my passport (at the time, you only needed to bring a driver's license and that is all I ever brought with me). After asking me questions for over an hour (literally, what hospital was I born in? where did I go to elementary school? etc...) and looking me up in various databases, the guy starts going through my stuff.
The customs agent wanted to search my smartphone (Sony Ericsson P910i at the time), but he didn't know how to use it. I asked him what he thought he could possibly find in there that could be contraband. At any rate, he didn't know how to search my phone, and I wasn't going to help him. There was a big toothmark in my phone from where my dog chewed on it, and I told him that because of the damage to the touch screen, I couldn't actually go through the files on the phone anymore. He wasn't too happy with that answer, but he accepted it anyway.
Another hour later I started complaining to one of the supervisors on the floor-- I had been sitting in this smelly waiting room for 2+ hours with no access to a bathroom, and there was no apparent reason to keep holding me. By now the agent must have confirmed in at least 12 different databases that I am a US citizen, born and raised. I'm also just about the whitest nerdy white guy with a Boston accent that you could ever hope to meet; not exactly the archetype of a foreign agent or drug smuggler. The supervisor finally gave me leave to go.
Of course my car had been turned upside down-- glove compartment and everything else turned out. Rather than complain again, I just wanted to get out of there.
Since then I always bring a passport, and I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience.
Good timing with the Truecrypt 5.0 release. This is search/seizure without cause and is against basic rights but this shouldn't be too big a deal. It isn't for me.
I travel with everything inside a Truecrypt hidden volume. My OS is exposed in the regular volume along with browser cache showing activity to news.google.com. That's it. The rest of the system is contained within a hidden volume.
I've been asked to turn my PC on and type in my "password" and I do so cheerfully. They see exactly what I allow them to see: The OS with browser cache to news.google.com. They seem satisfied and I get waved on.
I can play this game and I win. I'm not waiting for the courts to tell me what is/isn't right/wrong. I already know what's right/wrong. It's irrelevant (to me) how this all plays out in the courts. No thief, public or private gets my data.
-[d]-
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!
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
For example, the government can legally jail or even kill someone
With restrictions such as due process, that is. Unless you're going to come out and say "oh well, the government can jail or kill whoever it wants with impunity". The funny thing is that citizens have similarly restricted rights, for instance, they can kill in self defense.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Next time I cross the border, remind me to carry a suitcase full of DVDs full of random data labeled "one-time pad disk 1," "one time pad disk 2," etc.
Let them waste their time copying those disks.
When they ask what they are, I'll tell them the truth: They are unused one-time pads that are designed to be used to encrypt corporate data. If they ask, I will also tell them truthfully that if they leave my sight they will not be used.
Oh, I'll also include a disk that has nothing but a copy of the Bill of Rights on it, just to see if they are paying attention.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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!!
Sir, this is a despicable argument.
The point is not that the US is "better" than some dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole.
The point is that the US today is much worse than the country defined by the US Constitution and bravely won by its founding citizens.
To compare the US to a dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole is an insult to every American who has fought and died to protect the ideals of the US Constitution.
As for your right to vote, it's true that the citizens of the US have not yet been asked to relinquish it. Instead, elections are a circus of toadies funded by powerful interests. The US has been brought to its current state by people who were ~elected~. Think about that if you decide that your Constitution expresses ideals worth fighting for and even dying for.
Great people conceived the US Constitution. Brave people have defended it and died defending it. The measure of the success of the US is NOT weather it is better than some dictatorship or chaotic hell-hole. The measure of the success of the US is whether it is the nation that the Constitution intended it to be.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Flash drive mule.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Want to fight back? Buy a cheap laptop off eBay and fill it with the most dangerous viruses and trojans you can find. If you don't know how to do that just visit a lot of Russian porn sites without patches or a firewall.
The big issue here is the dangerous idea that ideas are dangerous.
Far distant dystopian future: With transporter technology, customs "copies" you at the border and keeps a copy of you in stasis for further questioning/interrogation. "You are free to go. Your copy will stay behind for questioning. Don't worry--you won't feel a thing."
I keep thinking back on a USENET posting titled The Legend of Ruritania (this may not be the official link, but is the oldest preserved copy I could quickly locate).
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
Because "we the people" not just let it — we demand it to, and vote out people, who are opposed to it...
When the Federal Income Tax was first introduced in 1864, it was only 3%. We are now boiled up 35% (having touched 88% in 1942) and you don't seem to scream.
So, pardon me, if I don't object to Customs Agents copying (not "confiscating") data for examination too much — they've been searching through travelers' material possessions since their "service" was introduced...
We are now facing a very real danger of Ms. Clinton getting elected — because, as analysts say, of support for her among single women, who "desperately need" the "schools, mass transit, childcare", that she promises to deliver them. What those analysts — and everyone else — omit, is that those women want all of these benefits "for free", or, as we know, at somebody else's expense.
In other words, don't accuse the government — it just follows the people's wishes...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Searching and reviewing != copying and archiving.
Let me just say, I live in a former "communist country". And this sounds exactly like the bad old days my grandparents sometimes talk about.
The way I see it, you guys are being screwed. Slowly, but oh so absolutely.
I know I won't be coming your way any time soon.
Boiling a frog, indeed.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Well, you know, they're just trying to keep us good citizens safe from outsiders bringing terrorist acts to our nation. Our borders must be secure.
... terrorists are people ... people need food, clothing, shelter ... I've got it! Since terrorists must live somewhere, we should be able to search anywhere that people live. Don't we have the right to know for sure that our neighbors aren't planning to drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded shopping mall? (Oh, yeah, I forgot shopping malls, them too.)
... really drive the message home that every citizen is a security officer ... get people pay attention to every little detail, and report things they think might be suspicious.
Of course, there might be one or two that slip through, or people already inside the borders who begin terrorist activities. We should probably do this same kind of thing at state borders, too.
And the big cities. I mean, New York has already been attacked. Chicago has the tallest building in the nation. And there are plenty of huge metropolitan areas that could be ripe targets. We should make sure that our big cities are safe.
Speaking of buildings, we should probably also conduct these searches whenever someone is entering a large building. That would certainly relieve the fears of the people who have to work in (or near!) high-rises every day.
But you don't have to enter a building to do something bad. Just being out on the street, you could have some kind of chemical or biological weapon, or a dirty bomb. (Remember Jose Padilla? We're lucky we caught him.) The police should be able to search public spaces, including the people in them, at their will. Really, you're in a public place, you should expect to be inspected.
Okay, we've got all that covered, but that's all defensive. If we really want to rid this world of the threat of terrorism, we need to go to the source. Let's see
That's going to take a lot of resources. A lot of people. We'd have to really get the citizenry on board here
Not everyone can keep that up, though. I mean, we're people! We have jobs and families! We shouldn't have to bear the burden of constant vigilance; if everyone has to give up their regular lives in order to become a police officer, the terrorists have won!
We live in an age of technology! We can develop a giant database, and fill that database with information collected by audio and video recording equipment. We can install that surveillance equipment in all those places above I've demonstrated that terrorists can be found, have them all feed into the database.
National borders, state lines, cities, public buildings, city streets, shopping malls, private homes.
In all seriousness: I would much rather live in fear of terrorism than in fear of my own government's attempts to prevent it.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
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
The government is a bully who says "deal with it" knowing no one will do a thing.
I'm not an American and I don't live in the US anymore but I do keep an eye on what's happening. My satellite TV is good enough to bring me "FSTV" (Free Speech TV, if you have DishNetwork its there around 9000) Last night they ran the amazing film "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Director Aaron Russo. It knocked me over and even though much of the info was not new to me the way he put it together really put a punch in it. http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ or find it on torrent. Ron Paul does a pretty good interview about the Federal Reserve.
What possibly could be a threat in data that Customs needs to confiscate it? Are Customs being used to provide data to the government? Are Customs being used to provide information for American companies? Are Customs being used just to get Americans accustomed to the idea that they have nothing private?
So if the US Customs agents make copies of all my MP3s, isn't that "stealing" the music, as defined by the RIAA? Are they going to end up paying $7,000 per song they have copied when they are brought to court??
"But this one goes to 11!"
As I recall, under long-standing International treaty and law, a nation has the right to control anything and everything that passes its borders.
Under the US constitution, the people have a right for their papers to be secure from unreasonable searches. Considering that data itself cannot be a threat to anyone, it's pretty clear that this search is unreasonable. And even if data could be a threat, there are so many ways for data to enter the country that interdiction at the border is not a reasonable strategy to stop it.
All governments therefore have the right to surveil your electronic storage media, paper documents, perform cavity searches, and whatnot.
Except for the US government, who is specifically forbidden by its constitution. And really, just because everyone does it doesn't make it right.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
... to image copy one hard drive in a year?
Sheesh! These guys must be totally incompetent idiots if they can't make a copy of a hard drive within a day, and return the laptop. If they think the owner might use that data to commit a future crime, then keep the hard drive and return the rest of the laptop. If they think the owner might commit a crime even without the data, then arrest the owner. Just keeping laptops makes no sense.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This "game" should not even be played in the United States of America. The fact that you feel the need to hide that which need not be hidden is a true metric of just how far the U.S. has gone down the wrong road.
If the U.S. government was a spouse, the entire world would be telling us to get a divorce on the grounds of an abusive relationship.
Wrong: Richard Nixon, 1969. Its been that long ...
Look at the figures and weep. The US, on a per capita basis, beats everyone else.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita
The neighbours to the north and south manage to be MUCH lower ... feeling oppressed yet?
Kevin Smith on Prince