Laptops Can Be Searched At the Border

Nothing to Declare notes that a California appeals court has unanimously upheld a ruling that border security officers at international airports can search personal computers without requiring any specific evidence of criminal activity. The appeal was made by US resident Michael Timothy Arnold, charged with child pornography offenses after an airport search of his notebook PC in 2005. Might want to think hard about what's on your laptop if you're going to be passing through a US international airport.

Comments

I Wonder

[OS24Ever]

It makes you wonder that if there hadn't been something like Child Porn on there if this would have been overruled.

If it'd been a violation of rights search where they searched and you sued just for that with no criminal conviction.

The sad part, is this sets a president if it is allowed to stand, and whittles away at everything else.

Re:I Wonder

[the_skywise]

It makes you wonder if Slashdot would've even posted something like this if it didn't involve computers...
FTFA:

"Arnold has failed to distinguish how the search of his laptop and its electronic contents is logically any different from the suspicionless border searches of travelers' luggage that the Supreme Court and we have allowed," wrote Justice Diarmuid O'Scannlain.

Is searching the files on a laptop when entering the country any different from searching paper files in a briefcase at the border?

Re:I Wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't carry drugs or bombs on a hard disk.

Re:I Wonder

[WaltBusterkeys]

The sad part, is this sets a president if it is allowed to stand, and whittles away at everything else.

First, you mean precedent. The President is the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. "Precedent" is what judges use to decide cases.

That said, the border search exception has always allowed the government to search your bags when you cross the border, to look for drugs, guns, agricultural products, etc. Think about passing through Customs at any international crossing -- they get to randomly pull you out of line and dump out the contents of your bag for any reason whatsoever (or no reason whatsoever) and make sure you're not smuggling anything into the country. That understanding of the Fourth Amendment has been on the books for centuries. It might be "right" or "wrong," but there's no doubt that it's been the law for ages.

Re:I Wonder

[Z00L00K]

Time for all of us to let our laptops boot up into obscure korean, sami or other languages when they are going to inspect them. Maybe a power supply requiring a 400VAC feed too - and no battery :-)

Odd operating systems like AROS or text only interfaces may also do well. You just can't fail the nerdity test then!

Re:I Wonder

[Teckla]

The sad part, is this sets a president if it is allowed to stand, and whittles away at everything else.

The Supreme Court doesn't set presidents, they set precedents.

Oh, wait...

Re:I Wonder

[_xeno_]

I remember once when playing around with distros, I wound up doing something to GRUB such that it lost its menu.lst. (I can't remember exactly what I did, since it was still able to find the Stage 1.5 and Stage 2 files. I must have just accidentally deleted menu.lst.) Rather than bothering to, you know, fix it, I just booted "manually" by entering the GRUB commands to boot whenever I needed to reboot - which, being Linux, was basically limited to kernel updates.

In any case, it made it so that the computer was essentially only bootable by me, since only I knew the magic commands to start it. (Something like root (hd2,7), kernel /boot/vmlinuz, boot - a relatively simple configuration that wasn't really that hard to remember once you knew the magic numbers.)

So just delete /boot/grub/menu.lst after memorizing the magic commands to boot your system, and leave the customs agents staring at the GRUB> prompt.

Re:I Wonder

[whyde]

This previous topic seemed to cover it pretty well. Not only do they assert the right to search, they assert the right to make a copy of your computer's contents as you pass through customs.

I wonder if the right to search your physical belongings is limited in any way, or whether they assert the right to make a photocopy of any printed document that you may have with you. Imaging taking your personal journal or diary along on a trip and having someone insist that they must photocopy it to pass through customs. How are your "papers and effects" a perceived threat to anyone while traveling, and how can one be secure in them anymore?

Re:I Wonder

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I wonder if you can set a president to self destruct?

Judging from his poll numbers, it is safe to say that GWB has. The truthiness of this is beyond doubtability.

Re:I Wonder

[voice_of_all_reason]

Is searching the files on a laptop when entering the country any different from searching paper files in a briefcase at the border?

Well actually, yeah. Depending on how meticulous the person is, it can have any or all of these things:

-Proprietary or confidential information for any company you've ever worked for (regardless of whether or not it was a good idea to have saved that)
-Elaborate summary of your fantasies (porn folder)
-Logs of all personal correspondence or hobbies you've stored electronically (newsletters you've received or published, emails, instant messages, message board subscribed to, etc)
-Financial information (tax forms, bank account records)
-History of anything you've purchased online (from email, or logging into sites via the cookie on your machine)
-Political, cultural, or sexual leanings (via browser bookmarks)

That's alot of stuff to be available on demand, huh? What about making an image of the hard drive for later perusal? It's not like you have to worry about that kind of thing being lost/stolen/hacked form wherever warehouse it gets dumped at.

Re:I Wonder

[unlametheweak]

You can't carry drugs or bombs on a hard disk. Yes, but you can carry ideas, perversions, business contacts, dirty pictures, and trade secrets. All of these are of interest to inquiring minds.

So it doesn't really matter if privacy is violated as long as the government gets to meet its agenda.

Re:I Wonder

[MenTaLguY]

You can't carry drugs or bombs in paper files either. Except maybe LSD.

Re:I Wonder

[Minwee]

So just delete /boot/grub/menu.lst after memorizing the magic commands to boot your system, and leave the customs agents staring at the GRUB> prompt.

As it happens, many customs agents know their own magic commands to boot the system.

"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to boot this computer."

Saying "No" isn't the most helpful answer to that request.

Re:I Wonder

[unlametheweak]

You can't carry drugs or bombs in paper files either. Except maybe LSD. Thanks for the tip ;)

Re:I Wonder

[unlametheweak]

Since when is "loose morals" an illegal act? In the US there is the Vice Squad, in Toronto Canada there is (or was?) the Morality Squad, in Saudi Arabia there is the Religious Police.

"Loose morals" are illegal so long as they are written into law (or at least enforced by Authority).

Re:I Wonder

[Beardo the Bearded]

I Â Unicode!

Re:I Wonder

[twistedsymphony]

A friend of mine had his laptop "searched" when returning from vacation through Florida. He wrote about his account if you're interested. He used to own a website that sold console modding/hacking paraphernalia and their reason for searching is that they assumed he was smuggling something into the county.

I think the real question is whether or not they can search all storage media or just the computer itself, what's to stop you from removing the hard drive and replacing it with a small flash media card on a hard drive adapter containing a clean install of Ubuntu whenever you fly? Or better yet just leave a Live CD in the drive and install a switch under the battery to cut power to the HDD.

Re:I Wonder

[penguin_dance]

Drugs...yeah probably not worthwhile, but bombs.....

One of the reasons they started making people turn on their laptops was to make sure it was a working computer and not hollowed out computer carrying an explosive divise.

I'm guessing they equated this search with looking through a suitcase, finding a suspicious envelope, which when opened contained child porn photos or film.

Oh and BTW, before everyone starts blaming Bush and overzealous national security laws, this ruling came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, known for being one of the most liberal (and most overturned) of the federal appeals courts. However, the article speculates that this probably won't be heard in the Supreme Court because the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upheld a conviction for a man who crossed the Canadian border with a computer holding child pornography.

Re:I Wonder

[TeknoHog]

You can't carry drugs or bombs in paper files either. Except maybe LSD. Thanks for the tip ;)

It seems your 'R' key is a little wonky, though you managed to type 'for' correctly.

Re:I Wonder

[ender-]

...

I'm guessing they equated this search with looking through a suitcase, finding a suspicious envelope, which when opened contained child porn photos or film. ... I have to ask. What constitutes a 'suspicious' envelope in a suitcase? Lets say I have a suitcase containing my clothes, and I have a letter-sized manila envelope laid on top of the clothes. Shy of a big "My kiddie porn" written in sharpie across the face of the envelope, what would make that envelope more suspicious than any other envelope? How is this determined?

I suppose if the envelope is sneaking around, glancing furtively and acting paranoid, I maybe could see describing it as 'suspicious'. Otherwise they are just opening random envelopes. Nothing suspicious about them at all.

Re:I Wonder

[sexybomber]

Time for all of us to let our laptops boot up into obscure korean, sami or other languages when they are going to inspect them. Maybe a power supply requiring a 400VAC feed too - and no battery :-)

Odd operating systems like AROS or text only interfaces may also do well. You just can't fail the nerdity test then!

Uhhhh, I know you're kidding, but may I remind you that some (most?) TSA thugs are so dense that they couldn't figure out what a MacBook Air was? I'll bet you a beer that the situation turns out something like this:

$RANDOM_GEEK: Here you go, officer.
(Laptop boots with Korean-language GRUB bootloader)
TSA Guy: Whut the f**k is this? That some sorta Muslamian language? ARE YOU A TERRORIST, BOY?
$RANDOM_GEEK: No, it's just...
*brrrrrzap*
$RANDOM_GEEK: Don't tase me, bro!
TSA Guy: BACKUP! I NEED BACKUP!

Re:I Wonder

[Hemogoblin]

Speaking as someone who has worked for Customs (but not in the United States), I can tell you that those are absolutely awful excuses. I guarantee you that any Customs officer will easily notice that you are lying and immediately become suspicious. This is the very LAST thing you want to happen if you were hoping to get through Customs quickly.

Remember, Customs officers are mostly trying to find things that are out of the ordinary. Carrying a broken laptop on a business trip, or carrying a random "friend's" laptop never, EVER happens. The absolute best advice I can give regarding Customs is (1) Don't be stupid, and (2) Don't lie, ever. If you are ever caught in a lie, regardless how small and insignificant, you are fucked. Just don't do it, because it will make my life and your life easier.

Re:I Wonder

[vortechs]

Interesting - nobody ever drops a laptop while on a business trip and brings it back with them to get it repaired in the States? That's certainly what I would have done...

Re:I Wonder

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Err, hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order.

As you point out, killiing is also very illegal, not to mention immoral, and yet you do not see border agents confiscating copies of B-grade horror slasher movies or "Rambo III". Why is that? These movies pefrom the exact same function as the pervert's pictures: to induce pornographic pleasure by viewing despicable acts and to foster fantasies in the viewing audience (for some the fantasies of being the "good" guy detective or a "military macho hero" and some of being the chain-saw wielding murderer or a villain warlord).

In short, like great majority of "morality" laws, this is just another example of illogical, inconsistent, hypocritical behaviours by societies and therefore their "authorities".

The same is of course applicable to criminalizing drug use; stupidity, uselesness and utter counter-productiveness of which one can write whole volumes about.

And all of which is of course the result of people's inability to reconcile a mish-mash of religious dogmas, base animal instincts, and the results of industrial and scientific progress which altered the environment to the point where the evolution-dictated, hormone-driven wiring of people's brains is no longer able to cope.

Re:I Wonder

[Inglix the Mad]

One of my friends might get a kick out of taking a virgin hard drive, intentionally borking (breaking) a load of Windows on it, saying that it doesn't work, and when they clone it they get the windows and such, and also several thousand single letter jpegs and word docs (kind of like DW2004 did when you had created a new sheet) just to take time.

Stupidity should be countered with the mockery of it.

Re:I Wonder

[Hemogoblin]

I worked as a Customs officer in another country, but I'm pretty sure things are very similar in the United States. The issues you brought up don't particularly worry me, since I've had firsthand experience searching laptops.

I can't speak for other officers, but there are only three reasons I would ever look at a laptop
(1) I thought there were drugs or other substance physically hidden inside. (I have never seen or heard of this happening)
(2) I am suspicious of the person's reason for seeking entry to the country, and I need to determine who or what or why they are here.
(3) Their criminal record indicates some sort of fraud, child molestation, or other nasty things.

If I am searching a laptop for one of the above reasons, I will usually make a cursory search (or thorough search for reason 3) for child porn. I'm somewhat younger than the average age for a Customs officer, so I would say I'm slighty more computer savy than the other officers. Obviously I'm aware of things like hidden folders, and the possibility of things like TrueCrypt. An average officer would usually just browse the contents of various folders, maybe use built in window's search, and check any cds they have lying around in their bag. I wouldn't be slowed down by a laptop running Linux, but it would certainly throw off an average officer. Unfortunately, that just means you'll be sitting around for a few hours while they call in a computer tech or figure out what to do with you.

The chance that one of these searchs is going to give away "trade secrets, ideas, and sensitive business contacts" is going to be pretty much nil. There is no point of looking at your random business documents except to determine why you are entering the country. I'm certainly not going to recognize, remember, or understand any business secrets that you have on your laptop. We don't make copies, nor do we connect them to our computer network, so they're not going to leak that way either. So really, even if you did have business secrets on your laptop, it's extremely unlikely that one of these searchs will reveal them.

I would like to say however that if your laptop is SEIZED, then the above may not apply. Once a laptop is seized, it is out of the regular Customs officers hands and it is sent to some sort of technical department. I have no idea what they do with seized goods. In addition, I only worked at an Airport, so I'm not sure if/how laptop's are searched if they are entering by mail.

Re:I Wonder

[rmccann]

You can make a horror film without killing someone. In order to make a child porno film, you have to sexually abuse a child.

Re:I Wonder

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"before everyone starts blaming Bush..."

If you're defending Bush at this stage of the game, you're a fucking wack job :)

Re:I Wonder

[unlametheweak]

You can make a horror film without killing someone. In order to make a child porno film, you have to sexually abuse a child. Wrong! And I smell hypocrisy here; you are implying that the movie with violence can be simulated and the one with sex cannot. Also, I can only presume you are equating sex with "abuse" (I use quotes here because it is a vague word that is used only for political reasons. The very use of the word itself is a Troll).

So right now in Ontario, Canada the award winning film the Tin Drum was recently classified as "child pornography" (a film I happened to have watched (legally) on Canadian television when I was a child). This is an example of morality being adopted into law. If I was to impose my own morals on people then parents who expose their children to religion would be put in jail for their perversions. It's lucky for those parents that I neither have the power or hypocrisy to do this.

Re:I Wonder

[Grishnakh]

By making child porn illegal, you reduce the demand for it and thus reduce the supply as well.

That concept worked really well during Prohibition, didn't it?

Re:I Wonder

[IgnoramusMaximus]

As others have already pointed out, that is not true.

Furthermore, all "child pornography" (whatever the definition) is "illegal". In some places that definition includes fantasies such as hand drawn cartoons and stories.

Also, while on the subject of "child pornography", what is it exactly? When does a subject cease to be a "child" and become an "adult"? Most countries use a self-contradictory, hypocritical and obviously (to any thinking person) bogus scheme: one day you are a feeble-minded minor who is to be protected from evils of tobacco, alcohol and sex and just about a millisecond later (at the stroke of a clock on your birthday) you are a full-fledged, strong-willed, responsible "adult" who can participate in a televised orgy while boozed out of his/her mind. Logical, no?

Not to mention that in many countries you are old enough to serve in the army, go slaughter other people, witness unspeakable horrors of war and be subjected to them ... and yet you are not old enough to bang someone 5 years older then you. Say nothing of alcohol.

"Hypocrisy" is a word too weak for this nonsense, which most people accept without blinking or giving a second thought about it.

"Think of the children!" was always a rallying cry of every description of scoundrel and authoritarian since times immemorial.

In my view the problem of child abuse is far more complicated then this simplistic bureaucratic idiocy is trying to make it out to be and it revolves around a definition of consent and an ability to consent. But that is a whole other discussion. Pictures and other forms of information have very little to do with any of this, other then to serve as a focus of wrath of various power-hungry political charlatans and authoritarians (many of whom are secretly collecting the very pictures).

Re:I Wonder

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Child porn is real evidence of underage children being victimized.

As I already pointed out, not necessarily. "Child porn", by the current legal "definition", includes things such as 3D animations, hand drawn cartoons, Photoshopped photos etc. All of which is illegal.

Furthermore, by the time it reaches some random laptop after circling the bowels the Internet for years, the odds of it being useful in tracking down the source are slim at best. And since when do we lock up people who are merely in posession of an "evidence" of a crime, almost certainly commited by another person?

Also, define "underage" in some logical terms not involving a "child" becoming and "adult" in a less-then-millisecond interval at the midnight of one of his/her birthdays.

Rambo is a fictional movie, in case you weren't aware, maybe it was your own fantasies that got a little bit out of control if you thought for a second they were the same.

Insulting me will not change the fact that these "laws" (and those who make and defend them) are utterly hypocritical and illogical.

Re:I Wonder

[Jesus_666]

The solution is simple: Only take things you absolutely have to when you go or from to the United States. Data doesn't have to travel with you; you can either transmit it in and out of the country via VPN or have a logistics service transport the hard drive to your destination in a parcel. Laptops shouldn't cross the border. Electronic devices shouldn't, as well. Maybe an iPod or an NDS, but still it'd be better to travel without them.

Just assume that every additional item you bring with you will be seen as an additional potential bomb/hidden weapon/evil secret data storage device. America is a fearful place; no need to further scare them by bringing gadgets with you.

Re:I Wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the very LAST thing you want to happen if you were hoping to get through Customs quickly .

...

Just don't do it, because it will make my life and your life easier.

That's what the majority of Americans give up their rights for: quicker and easier.

Time to think

[Jason1729]

Might want to think hard about what's on your laptop if you're going to be passing through a US international airport.

Might want to think hard about making a trip to the states even if you don't have anything untoward on your laptop.

Re:Time to think

[Hatta]

Funny though, our stature in the world seems to be declining along with our freedom. Eventually we'll have none of either left, and the world will continue without us.

Re:Time to think

[Anonymous Coward]

Your making mine eyes to bleeding.

It came about because people are too lazy to take responsibility for themselves. They want the government to do it all. So it obliges (?) and once that happens, they start complaining that their rights are being taken away.

When you cry, "think of the children," another right is taken away.

Re:I remember this happening to me.

[CogDissident]

So, an AC sends a link to "his blog", and the link is dead?

You sir, are made of fail.

Where and how do they search

[Kandenshi]

How deeply can/do they search a laptop while I'm waiting to get on my plane?

I know encryption gets their panties in a twist, but suppose I have data I want kept private is just burying it in a weird location good enough?
What are they actually looking for, and how would they be searching for it? Unlikely to get them disclosing said techniques publicly, so... Rampant speculation? :P

Re:Where and how do they search

[peipas]

And that's the thing. Like the last /. discussion on this, if your hard drive is encrypted can they compel you to provide access as a condition for allowed travel?

What about employees of organizations/in professions that are legally required to protect information?

Re:Where and how do they search

[gstoddart]

How deeply can/do they search a laptop while I'm waiting to get on my plane?

Well, they're not really limited by when your plan leaves.

They will hold you until they're done with you -- if you don't make your flight, that's not their problem, really.

I know encryption gets their panties in a twist, but suppose I have data I want kept private is just burying it in a weird location good enough?

They don't feel you have any right to privacy when crossing the boarder. Any attempt to maintain privacy is clearly an attempt to evade detection.

People who are evading detection clearly have something to hide, and merit further questioning.

You really are fsck'd either way. And, in the end, they could just keep the laptop anyway if they choose.

Cheers

Re:Where and how do they search

[Spokehedz]

There was a ruling a while back I believe in Massachusetts, but the gist was if you encrypt your laptop you do not have to give out your PGP key because it is covered under the 5th amendment.

So... You UPS your encrypted laptop (and your clothes, shampoo, etc.) to wherever you are going and get on the airplane with as little technology as you are willing to lose when you travel.

I fail to see how DHS or TSA are still a problem for people traveling. I've done this for years (even before the whole "OH NOES! TERRORISTS!") and I have yet to lose an article of clothing or some bit of technology when I travel.

Re:Where and how do they search

[Anonymous Coward]

When this first became an issue I received a company memo that gave the simple instructions:

• The border is not the place for a debate over the constitution.
• Cooperate with them, but don't volunteer information
• Provide any hard drive/power-on passwords and the email password if asked, but to refuse to supply VPN login (and related) information.
• I am to make clear the laptop is owned by the company.
• Get a receipt if they confiscate it

4th Amendment...

[Delwin]

"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. " I can see them checking your person before getting on a plane to make sure you're not carrying weapons... but what on your laptop could possibly endanger an airplane?

Re:4th Amendment...

[Erioll]

Think about going through international customs at any major airport. You go through US customs after you've already landed. The point is to control smuggling of goods into the US, not to protect airplanes. Depends. If flying from Canada, in many airports (Calgary at the least) you can actually pre-clear customs in Canada itself, then all flights to the USA are out of a single wing of the airport so you're essentially "in the USA" at that point, and don't need to clear after you land. Works out for everybody really. If there's a problem you're not in ANOTHER city when it happens, and the airlines themselves don't need to fly somebody BACK if there's a problem either.

Not that it's ever happened for me. I swear when they scan my passport the screen comes up with a big message saying "BORING" and they just let me through. Which is fine with me!

Re:4th Amendment...

[Kohath]

You don't have a 4th Amendment right to cross the US border.

As a condition of allowing you to cross the border, you are subject to search. It is as simple as that.

All governments have always rightfully had the power to control traffic across their borders.

Re:4th Amendment...

[Solandri]

Think about going through international customs at any major airport. You go through US customs after you've already landed. The point is to control smuggling of goods into the US, not to protect airplanes.

I agree, but that reasoning only works for physical goods. If I'm trying to smuggle cocaine into the U.S., then yeah searching me at the border could stop me. But we're talking about data - ones and zeros. If I'm trying to smuggle it into the U.S., I don't need to carry it on my laptop, I could just email it to someone already in the U.S. Or leave it on a server outside the U.S., enter the U.S., open an SSH tunnel to the server, and ftp the files over.

Re:4th Amendment...

[sm62704]

You have no fourth amendment rights while in your car either. Or as I found out on the day we pay tribute to the brave men an women who died in defense of our Constitutional rights, The cops will search your garage without a warrant too.

I wrote a piece about this a few years ago, it seems things are only getting worse.

-mcgrew

Re:4th Amendment...

[Kohath]

I'm not seeing what your point is. You can cross the border and be searched. Or you can not cross the border and not submit to a search.

Are you saying you were flying along and accidentally encountered the US border?

On the plus side...

[Wordplay]

This should cause a nice bump for encrypted drive/volume software.

It's a real shame this revolved around a kiddie porn case that hinged on the admissibility of the evidence. Nobody wants to let the kiddie porn guy go, so the chances of getting a good precedent here were probably that much lower.

Logically Different

[flaming error]

Arnold has failed to distinguish how the search of his laptop and its electronic contents is logically any different from the suspicionless border searches of travelers' luggage that the Supreme Court and we have allowed," wrote Justice Diarmuid O'Scannlain. I think we've all forgotten something. The reason "suspicionless border searches of travelers' luggage" was initially allowed was to find bombs. I have yet to see a data file so explosive that it can take out an airliner.

Re:Logically Different

[WaltBusterkeys]

You've got two different searches confused.

The search of people flying on any flight is an "administrative search" to look for weapons. It is strictly limited to searching for weapons--if the cops see drugs they can bust you, but they can't look for drugs or evidence of any other crime.

This is not the same search. This is the Customs search at the border and it has nothing to do with flying. Think about going through US Customs after you land in the US. The key is that it's after you've already landed. The government has always been able to look for drugs at US Customs, which has nothing to do with airline safety. (While a couple of kilos of blow might make your flight more entertaining, it's hardly the sort of thing that makes airplanes crash).

There's a very important difference between pre-flight safety searches (applies to any flight, domestic or international) and customs searches (applies to any means of entering the country).

Re:Cmon people

[WaltBusterkeys]

Why are computers treated any differently than anything else?

That's the entire point of the ruling. The government has always been able to search your bags when you cross the border, to look for drugs and guns coming into the country. That's been on the books for 200 years. The question was whether computers would be treated differently and get more protection than everything else.

What threat does data on a computer pose to an airplane?

It's not about getting on airplanes. This does not apply to domestic flights. It's about stuff crossing the border by any means. Presumably, this would apply just as much if you crossed the border by train or in a car.

The case has nothing to do with airplanes. It has to do with the "border search exception" to the warrant requirement.

Re:Cmon people

[WaltBusterkeys]

Sorry, missing link on preview:

Explanation of the border search exception.

Be Prepared

[Stavr0]

Idiot got caught with child porn. Zero sympathy here. However it's a slippery slope.

What about software, videos, MP3? What if they want proof of license? They could also decide to download your email inbox and address book. Why? Because They Can.
I know what's going on my laptop next time I cross the border. TrueCrypt. That's what.

Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto

[zappepcs]

I'm sure NYCL can give a better answer, but there has been some use of the 5th amendment right that protects you from having to incriminate yourself to legally allow you to not give them the password, or divulge where files are on your laptop.

My advice is bury it, encrypt it. Use obscurity in as much as you have several partitions encrypted, and when/if forced by courts to give up the password, give them the password to only one partition and counter sue for loss of data if you can. I forget what movie it was in but the bad guy said "always be guilty of a lesser crime" to avoid doing hard time.

Yep put your data in encrypted partition ABC, then a bunch of scientology and /b/ stuff in another encrypted partition xyz. If you are forced to surrender a password, give them only the password for partition xyz. Lie and tell them that is the only password.

Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto

[gethoht]

I highly recommend using truecrypt and incorporating a hidden volume. That way if you need to divulge a password, you can just give them one that allows access to a volume that doesn't have the sensitive data they are looking for.

Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto

[mr_majestyk]

The next logical question is, if you password-protect and encrypt your hard drive to thwart precisely this kind of unwarranted and unjustifiable privacy invasion, can Customs force you to divulge your passwords?

not YET...

/dev/urandom - a story

[davidwr]

Scene: Two bumbling customs officials at the International terminal departure area

Inspector Jimbob: Hey Joe, this guy has a Linux box, how do I read the files?
Inspector Joebob: Just click on the picture of a seashell and type "cat" and the name of the file.
(several minutes later)
Inspector Jimbob: I think we have a kiddie pevert here, I found a file that looks all encrypted.
Inspector Joebob: What file is it?
Inspector Jimbob: I did "cd /dev" like you showed me last week and there was this file called "urandom." I typed "cat urandom" and it's this huge encrypted file. See, it's still going. It must be kiddie porn. Or maybe it's a plot to kill the President. Yeah, that must be it, a plot to kill the President by giving him a heart attack by showing him kiddie porn.

[end]

Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto

[gstoddart]

I imagine there's some thinly-parsed definition about whether or not you're officially on US soil when you're entering Customs and, therefore, whether the Fifth Amendment could be said to apply.

Heck, Gonzales once issued a statement once saying that people who haven't cleared customs technically are neither in nor out of the US, and therefore have no actual rights (can't dredge up a reference now). He's certainly said that habeus corpus isn't actually a right.

Basically, for a while at least, the legal opinion was that you could be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained without recourse. You're so far removed from the 5th Amendment at that point, it's not funny!!

Unless things change, you have shockingly few rights at the border -- at least until a court clarifies things.

Cheers

Finally Vista has a decent use!

[Itninja]

Just keep you laptop loaded with a bloated Vista install. The 5 minutes login time should discourage the snoopy. Then keep your real Linux workspace on a bootable 8GB flashdrive.

Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto

[gstoddart]

Replying to my own post, bad form, I know ...

So, here is a news article which includes the assertion that you basically have no rights.

As a foreign national, and possibly even as a US citizen, you could find yourself with absolutely no legal rights whatsoever. I have no idea if that interpretation is still in effect or not. But, at one point, they could disappear your ass, and didn't feel like they had any real duty to protect you.

Scary shit!!

Cheers

Re:5th Ammendment?

[Detritus]

Customs officers do not need warrants, probable cause, reasonable suspicion or any of that crap. This is settled law and practice. If you went before the Supreme Court, they would laugh at you. It isn't any different in other countries. I've seen people get the contents of their luggage dumped on the floor and examined with a fine-toothed comb, just because the customs officer didn't like the way they looked.

Link to opinion

[gothzilla]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D5D931898D8168188257432005AC9B8/$file/0650581.pdf?openelement

1. He was randomly chosen for secondary questioning. Perfectly legal and constitutional.

2. He left the images on the desktop in a folder. They were not hidden.

3. This cannot be a violation of the 4th amendment because it was a border search. Border searches have been challenged and found to be constitutional numerous times in the past.

4. United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 153 (2004). Generally, "searches made at the border . . . are
reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border . . . ."

Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152. Therefore, "[t]he luggage carried by a traveler entering the country may
4179 UNITED STATES v. ARNOLDbe searched at random by a customs officer . . . no matter how
great the traveler's desire to conceal the contents may be."

He made no attempt to conceal the images as they were left on the desktop, but even if he had attempted to conceal them it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

5. Courts have long held that searches of closed containers and their contents can be conducted at the border without particularized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. This includes items such as a purse, wallet, or pockets. A laptop is no different.

6. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 152 (emphasis added), the Supreme Court has held open the possibility, "that some
searches of property are so destructive as to require" particularized suspicion. Id. at 155-56 (emphasis added) (holding that complete disassembly and reassembly of a car gas tank did not require particularized suspicion).
Since the search of his laptop did not require it to be damaged in any way, and the defendant also stated that his laptop was not damaged, it was again a legal search.

The only way he was going to get away with this is if he had shoved a memory stick up his butt and made sure he didn't do anything that caused suspicion.

Can you spell "True Crypt dot Org"?

[itsybitsy]

T.R.U.E. C.R.Y.P.T. D.O.T. O.R.G.

LEARN TO USE TRUE CRYPT or another encryption system TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THE PRYING EYES OF BIG BROTHER AGENTS WITH THEIR ARROGANT AGENDA OF PRIVACY VIOLATIONS. DOUBLE ENCRYPT (AT LEAST).

From: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/

rueCrypt is a software system for establishing and maintaining an on-the-fly-encrypted volume (data storage device). On-the-fly encryption means that data are automatically encrypted or decrypted right before they are loaded or saved, without any user intervention. No data stored on an encrypted volume can be read (decrypted) without using the correct password/keyfile(s) or correct encryption keys. Entire file system is encrypted (e.g., file names, folder names, contents of every file, free space, meta data, etc).

Files can be copied to and from a mounted TrueCrypt volume just like they are copied to/from any normal disk (for example, by simple drag-and-drop operations). Files are automatically being decrypted on-the-fly (in memory/RAM) while they are being read or copied from an encrypted TrueCrypt volume. Similarly, files that are being written or copied to the TrueCrypt volume are automatically being encrypted on-the-fly (right before they are written to the disk) in RAM. Note that this does not mean that the whole file that is to be encrypted/decrypted must be stored in RAM before it can be encrypted/decrypted. There are no extra memory (RAM) requirements for TrueCrypt. For an illustration of how this is accomplished, see the following paragraph.

Let's suppose that there is an .avi video file stored on a TrueCrypt volume (therefore, the video file is entirely encrypted). The user provides the correct password (and/or keyfile) and mounts (opens) the TrueCrypt volume. When the user double clicks the icon of the video file, the operating system launches the application associated with the file type - typically a media player. The media player then begins loading a small initial portion of the video file from the TrueCrypt-encrypted volume to RAM (memory) in order to play it. While the portion is being loaded, TrueCrypt is automatically decrypting it (in RAM). The decrypted portion of the video (stored in RAM) is then played by the media player. While this portion is being played, the media player begins loading next small portion of the video file from the TrueCrypt-encrypted volume to RAM (memory) and the process repeats. This process is called on-the-fly encryption/decryption and it works for all file types, not only for video files.
Note that TrueCrypt never saves any decrypted data to a disk - it only stores them temporarily in RAM (memory). Even when the volume is mounted, data stored in the volume is still encrypted. When you restart Windows or turn off your computer, the volume will be dismounted and files stored in it will be inaccessible (and encrypted). Even when power supply is suddenly interrupted (without proper system shut down), files stored in the volume are inaccessible (and encrypted). To make them accessible again, you have to mount the volume (and provide the correct password and/or keyfile).

Off to jail with me then

[tompaulco]

I am not allowed to show the files on my laptop to the customs agents due to HIPAA regulations. So I guess either I refuse, and go to jail, or allow them to look at it, and then go to jail once I set foot inside the U.S.

Re:Off to jail with me then

[esome]

I am not allowed to show the files on my laptop to the customs agents due to HIPAA regulations. So I guess either I refuse, and go to jail, or allow them to look at it, and then go to jail once I set foot inside the U.S. That's a good one. Here are a couple other hypotheticals that trouble me:

1) I share my laptop with my wife when I'm home because we can't afford a second computer. She has her own account and I don't know any of her logins or passwords. The directory in which her files are stored is not accessible by me. Is this the same as if I had accepted a package from someone else or been asked to carry their luggage for them? What sort of trouble am I in if the security folks either can't get access to her files or do access them and find something illegal there?

2) I have several encrypted disk images of personal (legal) documents. I can't remember the password for one of them but the security folks are demanding it. What happens now?

Re:Time to Roll Out The Crypto

[CodeBuster]

That way if you need to divulge a password, you can just give them one that allows access to a volume that doesn't have the sensitive data they are looking for.

nerd: (waving hand) These aren't the files that you are looking for...

TSA: These aren't the files we are looking for.

nerd: He can go about his business...

TSA: You can go about your business.

nerd: Move along...

TSA: Move along, move along please.

companion of nerd: I thought we'd never get past those guards!

nerd: The force can have a powerful influence upon the weak minded...

What happens if your laptop is encrypted?

[Futurepower(R)]

"... government gets to meet its agenda."

What happens if your laptop is encrypted? Can they tell you how it is supposed to work if the boot code is temporarily disabled? Can they expect you to supply a password? What happens if you carry the laptop hard drive in your pocket?

The free, open source TrueCrypt works with Windows and Linux and now encrypts the boot partition, on the fly, while the the computer is being used.

Re:What happens if your laptop is encrypted?

[unlametheweak]

What happens if your laptop is encrypted? They will demand encryption keys.

If you can't supply the encryption keys (or even if you do them them the keys) they can and will (at their discretion) confiscate your laptop. This was discussed on Slashdot before IIRC.

I'm a bit lazing with references ATM, so I will give you a general Google listing:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+customs+confiscate+laptop&btnG=Search

From the washingtonpost.com reference:

"This laptop doesn't belong to me," he remembers protesting. "It belongs to my company." 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.

Re:What happens if your laptop is encrypted?

[Futurepower(R)]

The U.S. is becoming a police state, apparently.

Stealing the laptop won't help if they don't have the password.

Truecrypt has the ability to make hidden encrypted partitions.

Digital transport

[rmadmin]

There is actually a pretty easy way around this. (Albeit, there are some variables that effect practicality). If I were to travel across borders and knew I had material I did not want seen (private photos? personal docs), I would simply sftp them some place safe and delete them from my hard drive. Once on the other side, I sftp my files back down. The border guards can search until the cows come home for all I care. Screw all that encrypted file system crap. :) PLUS, if my laptop gets broken or stolen, I don't lose all my important docs.

It doesn't matter what they find on the drive...

[gnuASM]

...what matters is what they decide to put on it.

Don't assume just because "something" was found on a hard drive, the owner was the one that put it there. You have absolutely no way of proving that any data on your hard drive was planted. Once anybody has free, unfettered access to your storage device, they can do whatever they please with it and you have absolutely no way to PROVE that the data had been deleted, revised, planted, etc.

This is why it is absolutely imperative that your right to be secure on your effects be absolutely and undeniably PROTECTED at ALL costs! YOU are the one who must prove you are innocent in our country. Innocent until proven guilty is the feel good catch phrase of our legal system. It is a fallacy that does not exist in the real world.

The only protection you have from corruption is to keep the corrupted out of your personal effects. It is an inalienable right that must be fought for tooth and nail to keep protected.

Re:Only on slashdot

[Smauler]

No, movies where people murder people are not illegal to own AFAIK. If so, I and many websites including youtube will be in trouble : One or two examples (if you haven't worked this out, these videos are videos of murders. Don't watch if you don't want to). Possessing video of a crime is definately not necessarily a crime in itself, apart from when it concerns sex.

The situation is this now : It is legal to own actual video of murders. It is illegal for a 17 year old to create a CGI of themselves (or obviously film themselves) and send it to their partner.

People are not defending child pornography here, people are questioning the law. Also, there is such a thing a due process - if you start ignoring it for "really nasty" crimes, eventually you'll start ignoring it for more and more crimes, and your liberties are dwindling at an alarming rate. Just because people question the process doesn't mean they are defending the actions uncovered by the process.