EFF To Fight Border Agent Laptop Searches

snydeq writes "The EFF and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives have filed an amicus brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that the full court rehear and reverse a three-judge ruling (PDF) that empowers border agents routinely to search files on laptops and mobile devices. The case in question involves US citizen Michael Arnold, who, returning from the Philippines in July 2005, had his laptop confiscated at LAX by custom officials after they opened files in folders marked 'Kodak Pictures' and 'Kodak Memories' and found photos of two naked women. Later, when Arnold was detained, officials uncovered photo files on Arnold's laptop that they believed to be child pornography. In addition to raising Fourth Amendment issues, the amicus brief (PDF) reiterates the previous District Court ruling on Arnold's case regarding the difference between computers and gas tanks, suitcases, and other closed containers, 'because laptops routinely contain vast amounts of the most personal information about people's lives — not to mention privileged legal communications, reporters' notes from confidential sources, trade secrets, and other privileged information.'"

Comments

Seizure the real problem

[jrumney]

I don't see the search itself as being as much of a problem as his laptop being seized because of two (presumably legal, as the article says women, and the alleged children came later) porn images.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Yvanhoe]

It is assuming that an information can be of danger to the state. That and the fact that they won't disclose to you what they are searching for. Maybe this guy don't want the police to know that he has two naked pictures on his laptop, maybe (who knows ?) one of this women is one of the agent's daughter. Maybe the other agent is an ultra-catholic who will just use his (PATRIOT-act given) powers to harass this guy because of pictures he finds immoral ?

In a perfect world, search wouldn't be a problem. Privacy rights exist because police agents, custom agents, administrative officials are all fallible humans that are allowed to have weird opinions, small IQ, various beliefs and can usually be bribed.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[interstellar_donkey]

That's really dangerous thinking, along the lines of "You have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide, so random and indiscriminate searches are okay".

There's a reason why we have privacy laws. The border agents here have really overstepped their bounds.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[goaliemn]

This has nothing to do with the Patriot act.. they've always had this power at the border. Courts, for decades, if not over 100 years, have always ruled you have limited/almost no rights at the border. US citizen or not..

Customs has the right to look for anything that could be against US Law, as well as looking for imports to collect duty and taxes on. They always have. Its just now, people are carrying more with them and on their laptops than before.

Do the limits need to be updated? Maybe somewhat, but I'd still want customs to have the authority/ability to do their job.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[sam0vi]

i will say this for the very last time: TrueCrypt hidden volumes. and you will be done with the problem. period.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In a perfect world, search wouldn't be a problem. Privacy rights exist because police agents, custom agents, administrative officials are all fallible humans that are allowed to have weird opinions, small IQ, various beliefs and can usually be bribed. I agree with you in principle, but I would argue that any "rights" exist on a much stronger basis than "to protect us."

A right is a fundamental, inherent to the existence of a human being. You have the RIGHT to live, not to protect you from someone taking that right away form you, but because here you are.

Privacy PROTECTIONS exists because any and all people in a position of power have opportunity to abuse their authority for personal gain, thus violating your RIGHT to privacy.

You could as well say the Constitution grants you rights. This isn't true at all. There are no Constitutionally granted rights, only Constitutionally protected ones.

I know this sounds like quibbling over semantics, but I think there's an important fundamental distinction here.

Now I'll climb off my soapbox.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone either from the UK or "down under" where you are warped by your excessive government control and oppression.

Sorry, but no. Anything more than a physical screening (ie. making sure the laptop isn't a weapon) is ridiculous. This is why I use TrueCrypt on my laptop. If the government wants to start violating constitutional rights in the name of false security, then I'll just encrypt and hide my shit.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Falstius]

Privacy is not a right the limited to the technical elite. The proverbial 'grandma' should be able to expect crossing the border to "just work" without having to set up full disk encryption (which if discovered they would detain you for until you unlock it, so you need to know how to hide it and then make a second dummy installation for them to discover and this really all sounds like a bunch of bullshit to go through when you think about it). The solution is to demand our individual rights, not to hide behind technological barriers.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[palegray.net]

No, you won't be done with this problem at all. You're still complicit in the stomping of the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. It will get worse, I assure you.

I'm not saying encryption is a bad practice (hell, my workstation's partititions are *all* encrypted). I'm simply saying that finding a way around the system isn't a suitable replacement for long term efforts to fight it.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[palegray.net]

Outstanding points. Unfortunately, our children are routinely taught in grade school that rights are somthing *given* to us by goverment officials. Even the average teenager (at least many I've spoken to) seem to think it's well within the government's power to take away your rights whenever it's "justified." They also seem to run with the general opinion that bad things won't happen to them; things like illegal searches only happen to "real criminals." Scary stuff.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Yvanhoe]

What is their job again ? To check that goods entering are legit and that people entering are legit. Information that you have to CARRY are not trade goods but private data that you can't easily prevent carrying. They may revel some past criminal activity from their owner but determining this is the role of a court, not a custom authority. A custom only has to stop known criminals.

And if you want, I can elaborate on why separating judgment and enforcement of a judgment are activities that must be carried by different organizations.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[palegray.net]

Hiding and encrypting your data is a good idea in general, even when not crossing the border. Here's the problem, though... how long until the mere presence of any encryption software whatsoever is taken as open permission to confiscate your gear until you feel like giving them the passphases they want? Who says you'll ever get it back at all, or won't wind up on a watch list? Aggresive legal measures need to be taken now to stop this crap.

To me, the most idiotic part is the fact that anyone sufficiently sophisticated to harbor a lot of illegal information, or information deemed dangerous to national security, would most likely be smart enough to send it over the net to its intended destination via an encrypted link. Oh, wait... does that mean the government will start considering data streams entering our country as liable to unquestioned search? Think about it.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "peace", not "piece".

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Yvanhoe]

It always amazes me that TrueCrypt volumes are considered to be a safe way of hiding data. An encrypted partition is sure to look like completely random data and unused parts of a regular disk are sure to look like something else than completely random data. Sure, you can deny it, but it still remains very suspicious.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[unlametheweak]

Privacy rights exist because police agents, custom agents, administrative officials are all fallible humans that are allowed to have weird opinions, small IQ, various beliefs and can usually be bribed. That is not my understanding. When applying for a job with the police and many other agencies IQ tests are a given (so average or above should be expected). Employers (and I would presume especially for the police) often do background checks which often includes searching social networking sites for any abnormal or unusual opinions, beliefs, lifestyles, etc., and can sometimes even involve "lie detector" tests and "drug" tests. Privacy is important because there are so many people that would like to take it away from us. These people (especially the police) are not allowed to be anything but status quo. I do take it that you are probably saying this from the perspective of a moral imperative.

Best regards,

UTW

Re:Seizure the real problem

[magarity]

Courts, for decades, if not over 100 years, have always ruled you have limited/almost no rights at the border. US citizen or not
 
Stunning when you consider that the Supreme Court has just ruled foreigners outside the border have practically full citizenship rights.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[umghhh]

germany's top human rights abuser happens to be a minister of the int(f)erior that has given himself rights to search through anything and everything including intrusion into private machines connected to internet, video spying on people including family members of suspects etc, I suppose Germany and US are not along on this. I guess we are all going straight into the police state and given the technical progress (if you can call it that) it will be very difficult to fight real monsters once they get the power.I mentioned Germany because the small painter from Viena mr. A.H. got into power (ab)using democracy. //

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> The proverbial 'grandma' should be able to expect crossing
the border to "just work"

So ask grandma to carry your laptop for you.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[magarity]

That's why you don't encrypt mere partitions; encrypt the entire drive. Then it appears to the OS as if the partition data has gone bad. It's very believable.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[cayenne8]

"Stunning when you consider that the Supreme Court has just ruled foreigners outside the border have practically full citizenship rights."

Apparently so do the foreigners that are within our borders illegally...they have broken the law, but, apparently now, it is a crime to jail them or deport them for breaking this law.

Oh well.....

Re:Seizure the real problem

[zwei2stein]

Sir, can you explain us why you have 2/3rd of your drive encrypted?

Can you give us key to take a look?

No? Too bad. Let us persecute you a bit.

Sorry, but encryption is NOT an option.

Being smartass wont help you either. Disk failure tale is not gonna hold water and missing substantial disk space is highly suspicious.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[goaliemn]

Information is a good and a commodity. Someone could be carrying illegal goods on their laptop. See this guys porn. There are other illegal goods that could be on a laptop as well. Its the same as searching someones suitcase, just this suitcase can hold alot more..

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Ihlosi]

Disk failure tale is not gonna hold water and missing substantial disk space is highly suspicious.

If you do it right (hidden volume), neither of the two is going to happen. There will be one partition that has some files on it, but is otherwise mostly empty. Unless they look at it with a disk monitor, nothing will look out of place. Of course, you need to keep your encryption software off your hard drive and on a separate medium.

If they write on the partition, your data will be gone, but I think writing anything to your disk goes way, way beyond searching it. And you'll have backups anyway.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[networkconsultant]

Simply use a USB Hard Drive and Ship it to your destination or use the following line: The National Secrets act prevents me from displaying the contents of my USB encrypted hard drive to Border officials due to your lack in clearance, Are you Secret or Higher? (Unless the border officall is Cleared to the Highest level which is unresaonable, they would not legally check your portable hard-drive without incidient) if they ask what you are doing with "Sensitive" information, you tell them that your clients are the Military, NSA whomever. There's a pecking order in every government, the grey area is around the civil service.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[zapakh]

Being smartass wont help you either. Disk failure tale is not gonna hold water and missing substantial disk space is highly suspicious. http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume.php

The existence of a hidden volume does not reduce the free space available to the standard volume.

Just don't try to write anything to the standard volume when you haven't also mounted the hidden volume, or bye-bye data.

Perhaps they could do some checksumming and Reed-Solomon magic on the hidden volume to detect and recover data errors the next time you do mount it; but I haven't read about anything like that.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the custom guards really technically saavy enough to understand how to read a disks actual size and compare it to disk usage? Or smart enough to be able to find hidden partitions, or folders hidden-by-obfuscation (eg, /etc/gconf/gconf.xml/hidden_folder_here/ or C:\Windows\twain32\drivers\hidden_folder_here)? I'd imagine that anyone with enough computer saavy to overcome well-thought out data obfuscation would have another job.

Personally, if I lived in or near the US, I'd switch the bios to boot off memory card first, have a memory card with a dummy operating system that makes the system looked borked, and then get really distressed that "my computer's broken". I can't imagine that they'd be smart enough to figure it out - again, wouldn't they pursue a different career if they knew enough about computers to understand what you've done (Lord knows that there's enough people already in the computer industry that couldn't figure that one out).

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Patrick Bowman]

Two important issues: 1. There is nothing illegal about pornography in general. It doesn't matter whether he had two or two million pix of naked women. Their discovery is as irrelevant as wedding photos. 2. Nowadays there are so many ways to carry files around - SD chips, CDs/DVDs, on your iPod, on an encrypted HD partition, not to mention just downloading them later - that this sort of search is largely pointless. Any serious importer of child pornography wouldn't even be inconvenienced by them. This is not to downplay the legitimacy of the child porn issue - but measures like this waste time and effort that could have been used elsewhere. In Bruce Schneier's phrase, security theater.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's a reason why we have privacy laws. The border agents here have really overstepped their bounds."

You have no privacy and should have no expectations of it when crossing a border.

The customs officials has the right to perform full body cavity searches on you without warrant, so what makes you think searching your laptop for illegal data is somehow "overstepping their bounds"?

You may disagree about whether this is morally acceptable or not, but the border agents were fully within their right to search and seize the laptop. The EFF is not going to get anywhere with this.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[minor_deity]

They already do search network and telephone traffic that crosses the border; and have for close to 50 years.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[i_b_don]

hm... i don't get it. What's going to happen?

"Yeah, there's a hidden partition there that I've encrypted." "no, i'm not going to give you the key"

What are they going to do, deny you entry to the country even if you're a US citizen? Removing the property is about the best they can do.

They have no right to lock you up until you provide a password. Well... *maybe* if they dragged you in front of some immigration judge and he held you in contempt until you produced the password, but that's about the worst that could happen. Plus, if you know that's where you've been keeping evidence of your crimes or child porn or whatever, it's an easy decision to wait in jail for 60 days or whatever and then go free.

d

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Orange Crush]

Grub on a one-second dual boot will do the trick too. Of course, the best way to protect privacy overseas is to wipe the drive before you leave, and download what you need when you get there. They can't rummage through data that isn't there.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[blueswan1]

On the other hand, there was a case of an applicant being refused a job with police because his IQ was too high. It would be interesting to know what the boundries they set for this sort of thing are.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[mspohr]

The point is that (at least with TrueCrypt) they have no way of knowing that there is a hidden partition there... thus 'plausible denial-ability'.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[profplump]

You're seriously going to tell me that physical child-porn smuggling is a significant problem that we need to deal with through customs enforcement?

And how many other illegal bits of information are there? I'd like to think there isn't a whole lot of *data* I'm not allowed to poses.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[JCSoRocks]

Suspicious to someone that knows what they're doing... Border jockey's aren't computer geniuses - if they were, they probably wouldn't be working at the border. You could probably get away with just enabling "Guest" and then logging onto your machine as "Guest". Throw a few dummy word docs and crap onto the desktop to make it look like you actually use it. done. If they're actually smart enough to notice that other user accounts exist on the machine just act dumb.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying if I have mail with me they can grab it and read it? What about information I have memorized? Torture it out of me at the airport?

Re:Seizure the real problem

[mikael]

For security, you can have your laptop automatically overwrite any free disk blocks with random data when it is not in use by any user.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Kijori]

What is their job again ? To check that goods entering are legit and that people entering are legit. No, their job is to check that people and goods enter and leave the country compliant with the law of the country. This can mean a lot of things as well as checking that people and goods are "legit". It can mean checking that people aren't carrying illegal drugs, it can mean checking that people aren't carrying illegal weapons, and, yes, it can mean checking people aren't carrying illegal pictures. The fact that it's on a computer makes no difference; it is illegal to possess child pornography and customs can perfectly legitimately search you for things you aren't allowed to carry.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[mikael]

I'd assume that they would have some automatic device that could be plugged in through a USB or Firewire port. Maybe something a simple as a basic one-click file scanner.

Taking a random sample of one or two images or movies per directory would probably be the most time-efficient way of searching.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[unlametheweak]

On the other hand, there was a case of an applicant being refused a job with police because his IQ was too high. That's pretty much what I was implying (and presuming) when I used the terms "average and above" and "status quo". On the surface it seems ideal; having an "ordinary" person that can deal with ordinary people. Unfortunately these Human Resources type recruiting approaches for getting the perfect candidate or the candidate with the best fit generally leads to a mono-culture within an organization. Sometimes even (or especially?) the police need to think outside of the box.

In my past I've dealt with police (on a professional and at times a semi-professional level), and yes sometimes on a personal level (I've been given verbal warnings in my youth a few times). On the semi-professional level I've noticed that the under-cover cops seem to be rather weird (they seem to be rather extreme in their off-duty lifestyles), so I am/was thinking that there may be different criteria for hiring under-cover cops. At any rate I'm sorry for being vague; at times I want to "protect" my own privacy and the privacy of those people I have encountered. The cops that I have met generally seem to be OK folk, but a few were rude and lacking in tact (I've been culturally profiled by police a few times) because of my long hair and genes, the neighbourhood I happened to be visiting, etc and so on (I can only imagine what a black person would feel like in similar circumstances). As a fairly middle-class white boy this has been disappointing.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone needs to fill up their file with documents of zippy talking to the analyst in emacs, and files created from dev/random, if everyones file is too full of junk they will never be able to sort it all.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[element-o.p.]

So by your logic, how long will it be until, when crossing the border, I have to prove that every MP3 on my laptop was legally obtained??? Or are we only searching for naughty pictures at the border?

Re:Seizure the real problem

[mrchaotica]

If the entire drive is encrypted, how does the OS work? Does Truecrypt have it's own bootloader?

Re:Seizure the real problem

[hairyfeet]

Uh,you do realize how quickly this will be abused,don't you? See the push for making customs into "copyright cops". Do you have a receipt for every song on your iPod? Then your $300 MP3 player just became their MP3 player,buddy. How about every video on your laptop? Boy they are going to be making a killing when they sell all these confiscated goods.

Lets be honest here. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with kiddie pr0n. That is just a red herring they use to get their foot in the door,because they can then yell "He supports child molesters!" when you try to resist. No,this is about profit for the state while helping out their big media buddies with a nice backdoor draconian copyright law. After all,what good will fair use be if your stuff will be confiscated without a receipt? And I'm sure that if you try to protect your privacy using encryption they'll just hold you and your stuff until you've been made into a nice example. I'm seriously starting to wonder if all those calls for a tighter border and a giant wall between us and Mexico isn't to keep us in as much as to keep them out.But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Seizure the real problem

[element-o.p.]

Not just teenagers -- I've spoken to waaaaay too many adults who hold the same opinions. Very scary indeed.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[element-o.p.]

You have no privacy and should have no expectations of it when crossing a border.

The customs officials has the right to perform full body cavity searches on you without warrant, so what makes you think searching your laptop for illegal data is somehow "overstepping their bounds"?

You may disagree about whether this is morally acceptable or not, but the border agents were fully within their right to search and seize the laptop. The EFF is not going to get anywhere with this.

Pure bovine scatology ("b.s.", for most of us).

There is a document in the U.S. called the Constitution of the United States of America. I don't recall reading anywhere in that document (and yes, I have read it) that says all of the protections afforded by the Constitution are null and void when crossing the border. Any claims to the contrary are strictly interpretation and legal maneuvering. The only reason the government gets away with searches at the border are 1) we agree that there is a practical need for some security at the border, and 2) therefore, we allow the government infringe upon the protections granted by the Constitution.

FWIW, if a border agent were to attempt a body cavity search on me or any of my immediate family without having a **** good reason, that agent better call for a lot of backup.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[element-o.p.]

Well said. Wish I had mod points for you!

Re:Seizure the real problem

[nonumnos]

Given the current administration, let's take this assertion to the next logical level. If anything or anyone traversing a US "border" is subject to warrantless search by US agents, then all network traffic is subject to similar search. By extension, you must provide the keys necessary to effect said searches.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[barry99705]

Then they throw your ass in jail for carrying "National Secrets" when you don't have the proper clearance.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[cayenne8]

"Stunning when you consider that the Supreme Court has just ruled foreigners outside the border have practically full citizenship rights."

Apparently so do the foreigners that are within our borders illegally...they have broken the law, but, apparently now, it is a crime to jail them or deport them for breaking this law.

Oh well.....

Troll?

What's trolling about this....what is factually wrong with my previous post?

Re:Seizure the real problem

[rtb61]

Of course searching at the 'border' is nonsense. You are either outside of the country and not subject to searches by that country or inside the country and fully protected by all your rights as a citizen and the constitution. The lie that somehow the border has width is just that a lie, which abusers of power seek to masquerade their illegal searches as legal.

The confiscation of legally owned assets, based upon the assumption of guilt rather that the legally defined right of innocence is also a criminal abuse of power. Your data is yours and privacy should be enshrined unless there is sufficient existing evidence to legally justify a search warrant, otherwise it is a further diminishing of a citizens rights, rights that your forebears fought and died to gain and protect, forebears who lived with the daily abuses of personal privacy, and established those laws to protect the rights of future generations so that they would not have to suffer to the same intimate abusive indignities and personal humiliations.

How proud can you be as a parent when it is your child that has their personal property taken, when their privacy is invaded or, when they are stripped searched and molested. As a grandparent is it really ok to allow your fears to motivate the stripping away of your grand children's rights. Rights and personal privileges that you enjoyed and that your own grandparents fought to provide for you.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[element-o.p.]

Agreed wholeheartedly. I hope you weren't arguing with my post above, because if so, I suspect it was because I wasn't as clear as I could (should) have been.

Border searches as described in TFA are entirely bogus, and need to be stopped NOW. Yes, customs inspects freight in and out of the country, and yes, I have allowed customs to search my bags when entering the country for the reasons given above. But although I might be willing to start my laptop for airport security to "prove" that my laptop isn't a cleverly disguised bomb, customs or TSA would find a very loud, very outraged individual were they to begin rifling through my hard drives' contents without a search warrant. And as I indicated above, they would find not only a loud, outraged individual, but a potentially violent individual were they to attempt a body cavity search.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[d3ac0n]

. I'm seriously starting to wonder if all those calls for a tighter border and a giant wall between us and Mexico isn't to keep us in as much as to keep them out.But that is my 02c,YMMV

Please don't try and conflate the issues of Illegal Search and Seizure with border security.

I find this entire situation vile. While it's disgusting that this guy had kiddie porn on his laptop, it is NOT the business of customs to be searching through this guy's personal info on a fishing trip for possibly illegal stuff. That's Totalitarian behavior.

Incidentally, I put many of these types of incidents at the feet of a unionized and unaccountable customs bureaucracy. Why the heck do we respond to the issue of Islamofascist terrorism with a bureaucratic nightmare organization that blanket targets everyone with no due process? It's moronic, ineffective and self-defeating.

However, properly securing our borders against infiltration by both Illegal Aliens and Foreign Agents is an integral part of National Defense. Not to mention that it spares the border environment the horrific amounts of garbage Illegals have been leaving in our delicate sub-desert ecosystems.

I'm all for making easier to legally emigrate to America. Less red tape and paperwork is always good. I think America should rightly welcome all who wish to come here and participate in Freedom and Free Enterprise by working hard (or smart) and earning their way to a comfortable and happy life for them and theirs. However, I am NOT interested in paying for those who would come here ILLEGALLY, flaunt our laws, commit all sorts of crimes, and try and use our social welfare systems as a hammock while they send cash back home. Sorry, America isn't your sugar daddy.

So you see, even a died-in-the-wool Conservative like me can see that these are two separate issues, and it is possible to support them both without being either a pedophile or a racist.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[d3ac0n]

What's trolling about this....what is factually wrong with my previous post?

Nothing at all. That's the SlashKos effect you get with some moderators who don't understand that Troll != I disagree with you.

Give it a a bit and it should get fixed.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seriously starting to wonder if all those calls for a tighter border and a giant wall between us and Mexico isn't to keep us in as much as to keep them out.

For a good laugh, look for the early Soviet/DDR (East German) propaganda for the Berlin Wall. The rationalization is precisely as you describe. The East Germans were told that the Wall was put up to protect them from being infiltrated by the evil capitalists of the West.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[palegray.net]

While I'm well aware of this practice (employed in the past in telecommunications and network security with public sector contracts, now active duty in the U.S. Navy), that's not what I meant. Customs agents are apparently allowed to confiscate your equipment if they believe you're hiding data on it via encryption or other means. How long until some "cyber enforcement" arm decides they have the right to deny encrypted network traffic that they aren't permitted to decipher via a shared key or some similar mechanism (think back to the concept of the Clipper chip).

Re:Seizure the real problem

[magarity]

From the online doc: TrueCrypt can on-the-fly encrypt a system partition or entire system drive, i.e. a partition or drive where Windows is installed and from which it boots ... Pre-boot authentication is handled by the TrueCrypt Boot Loader, which resides in the first cylinder of the boot drive

Re:Seizure the real problem

[jwiegley]

Knowingly lying to an officer of the law is committing the crime of obstruction of justice. So unless you yourself have the necessary clearance to be carrying the documents and the documents are actually classified appropriately then good luck with that.

By the way there are special channels and procedures to go through customs with particularly sensitive materials. If you are given this task then you are educated in this procedure. By standing in the normal line and going through the routine procedures the agent is going to know you're lying. Again, good luck with that.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[jwiegley]

No, they haven't. By proceeding past the signs that say all entering persons are subject to search he has given them his permission. the agents were fully in their bounds.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[hairyfeet]

Actually,I saw a special on the history of the wall which made me think of it. It showed these wonderful '40s style posters showing the evil capitalists sneaking across borders to blow up trains,sabotage bridges,etc. I can't remember if it was on Discovery of The History Channel,but it was quite good and more than a little scary. It is amazing to me how as long as the propaganda is supported by the mainstream media how many will believe it. But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Seizure the real problem

[magarity]

You should see the rollercoaster of moderation my original post generated; troll, interesting, troll, interesting. 2 pages' worth.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Obfuscant]

And as I indicated above, they would find not only a loud, outraged individual, but a potentially violent individual were they to attempt a body cavity search.

The louder and more outraged you act, and violent, the more they will feel justified in using as many people as it takes to do what they want to do. You can be sure there are more of them than there are of you. And the more the courts will side with them if you ever make it to court. You will not convince them to leave you alone by being loud, outraged and violent.

You MIGHT become an urban legend along the lines of the "don't taze me, bro" guy, but that line is already taken so make sure you use something original. Witty, quick, easy to remember. "Thank you sir may I have another", or "aw, that didn't even hurt".

It's like being the only sane one in an insane asylum. The more you protest and fight against the treatments, the more you prove to the people in charge that you are insane. After all, only an insane person would not want treatments that would make him sane. Only a violent criminal would be violent when dealing with customs agents.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[mxs]

There's a reason why we have privacy laws. The border agents here have really overstepped their bounds. That's the beauty of it. They haven't, technically. You see, when you are in contact with them, you are not actually in the country yet. There aren't really any bounds to abide by. See Gitmo.

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Fred_A]

Simply use a USB Hard Drive and Ship it to your destination Ship it ??

Encrypt the data, put it anywhere online and recover it when you've arrived.
Next you're going to suggest courrier pigeons.

As others have pointed out, now that every place, even the remotest ones are easily internetworked, it makes no sense to search people for data. Border searches for forbidden artefacts does make sense but data flows all over the place and even in places where it is forbidden (uh, pretty much everywhere I guess), I'm fairly sure that pulling kiddy porn off the Net shouldn't be too hard (assuming that's what the big hunt actually is about at the borders).
Or are they actually checking for your software licences ? Or what exactly ? Or do they routinely pull disk images to feed some kind of statistical database somewhere ? Where does that data go ?

Re:Seizure the real problem

[rootooftheworld]

i think truecrypt is implementing steganografick techniques, nice. what if somebody makes a file system patch just for that - impossibility to diferentiate between empty disk space and cripted data? maybe you could hide the encription software IN the hidden partion, and access it , therefore the rest of the data, with a obscure enogh command (BTW, did i read correctly - windows install?) kinda overkill, but straightforwwarrd enough on one level to make it just work (tm) at some point, mayabe entice the dudes at OpenBSD to work at it?
</crackpipe>

Re:Seizure the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

...the government will start considering data streams entering our country as liable to unquestioned search? Think about it. Already done, ask the NSA for more info.

Bad Case

[Nerdfest]

While I agree with the privacy infringements, I really wish it wasn't someone suspected on child porn complaining about it. It certainly won't garner much support from the general public, informed or not.

Re:Bad Case

[ArsenneLupin]

What it really takes to get this child porn nonsense to stop is that finally somebody important (CEO of large company, politician of major party) will be framed with some.

Until then, you can't even discuss the issue without being suspected of being a perv.

Re:Bad Case

[Doctor_Jest]

Well true, but two naked photos of grown women (I assume that's what the initial search uncovered) do not constitute "probable cause" to search for kiddie porn.

It's a fluke, from what I've understood of this case so far, that they uncovered child porn in the first place. The problem I have is that the "search" of the laptop initially produced something unrelated to a search for kiddie porn. Nudity != perverse pictures of children.

Even though this particular case shows a "positive" from the investigation, we need people to realize that in our system of justice and freedom the ends do not justify the means. We have protections and guaranteed rights (not granted ones) because we are protecting people from the system's possible abuses. We grant them power but never in exchange for our rights and freedoms. That is a common misconception of the "great unwashed" and it's up to us (and the EFF is helping) to educate people.

We need to focus away from the actual child porn found and focus on how they got to that... If we don't, the end result will become the justification, and like The Patriot Act, we'll be stuck with something that endangers us all.

Re:Bad Case

[elp]

Thats why child porn is so great for false accusations. You accuse someone of it and its almost impossible to prove your innocence. If you are feeling brave or you live in a slightly more chilled country search P2P for the R Kelly child porn video. She doesn't look or act even slightly underage but to anyone who hasn't seen it R Kelly is instantly an evil child molester and pornographer.

Re:Bad Case

[Speare]

What it really takes to get this child porn nonsense to stop is that finally somebody important (CEO of large company, politician of major party) will be framed with some.

If kiddo pix were found on one major political figure's desktop, that figure would be sent to jail and everyone would just shrug. Think of all the recent "family values" politicos who are simply erased with a shrug or lambasted for hypocrisy. Some of them may be innocent for all we know, but we're so jaded that hypocrisy is easier to explain than a frame-up.

Your plan would only work if the ones who framed a politician then came clean immediately afterward with PROOF of HOW they framed them, and more convincingly, framing two opposing figures at roughly the same time with different methods. At that point, when proving it was false to begin with, hit hard on the "if you've got nothing to hide" nonsense. Of course, if you plan to do such a campaign, you had better be able to remain firmly unfindable. Or you will be found hanging in your garden shed with a very convincing suicide note.

Re:Bad Case

[gyranthir]

Public support or not, protection of privacy and protection from illegal seizure are protected rights.

It's a sick sad world we live in and even if this guy was caught with whatever illegal stuff, if it was uncovered illegally he cannot be tried for it. (whatever he had probably wasn't illegal, just the media spinning it whatever way they want to sensationalize the story)

Lock stock and barrel searchs of someones laptop or other electronic device based on that it "could contain" illegal materials, is about a hollow a reason to prosecute someone that "makes available" copy righted content.

They (the privacy violators) should need a reasonable suspicion to search, or a search warrant, or all evidences acquired will be subject to the "exclusionary rule".

The more I read, the more this world is turning into 1984.

Re:Bad Case

[Harin_Teb]

There is not now, nor has there ever been a right to privacy at border crossings... unwarranted searches at border crossings is standard practice, and has been for a while, and has been upheld as being constitutional. Now the seizure resulting from the described image may or may not have been legal, we don't know enough facts to determine if the standard was met.

I for one agree with the governments analogy of computers to papers. If you want to encrypt your handwritten papers that would be fine, likewise if you encrypt your data it is fine, but the government still gets to look at it when you enter the country (Note that does not mean you are bound to give them the decryption key).

Re:Bad Case

[masdog]

What it will take to get this stopped is an innocent father or mother who is detained because they have a picture of their baby's first bath on the computer.

What's absurd these days is that parents are being investigated as child pornographers for baby bath pictures.

Re:Bad Case

[_LORAX_]

The problem is you must have standing to bring the case in the first place. In order to have strong standing you have to be harmed by the actions of the government. I can't think of very many other cases where a person would be harmed and would want to take it before a judge. If you lost confidential information or trade secrets to a border agent would you really want to make it know to the world? If you lost a laptop to customs would it really be worth the years of litigation to prove a point?

Yes, I wish it was something more benign, but this is a vary real person with a legitimate gripe about the use of illegally seized evidence being used to try and convict him in a criminal case.

Re:Bad Case

[DrLang21]

Considering that two underage teens were prosecuted for statutory rape for having sex with eachother, I don't think that is enough to get it to stop.

Re:Bad Case

[L4t3r4lu5]

But isn't it the case that they can't go through your handwritten papers?

Re:Bad Case

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to focus away from the actual child porn found [...] You mean we need to focus away from the "probably child porn, I mean, they kind of look like they're underage, right Jimbo?" found...

Re:Bad Case

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

What a shame that people are more sensible than that.

Re:Bad Case

[Anonymous Coward]

Going through files on a PC isn't like a suitcase it is more like reading your diary.

This child porn BS is as bad as the terrorist BS who the hell cares - child porn isn't as big an issue as it is just made to feel like that - yes you are being manipulated.

Re:Bad Case

[goaliemn]

at the border, they can go through whatever they want. I've had my car ripped apart crossing into Canada before..

Re:Bad Case

[johannesg]

Here in the Netherlands (which, contrary to popular belief, is not a nation of potheads and perverts) we had the local equivalent of a district attorney who threw out his old computer - containing child porn. The computer was found and the content were made public.

The result? He was spoken to in a firm tone of voice, and was moved to a cushy job far from the public eye. THAT'S ALL. He was not fired. He was not prosecuted.

The reasoning behind this? Well, he had apparently not intended to download child porn, he was just downloading normal porn (which is perfectly legal) and had accidentally included child porn as well.

Now, let's see a normal citizen try that particular defense...

So if someone important, like a DA, is revealed on national TV to have downloaded child porn, it will just be swept under the rug. End of story.

Of course, maybe things are different in the US. If you believe that I want you to hear about this great bridge I'm selling...

Re:Bad Case

[mfnickster]

While I agree with the privacy infringements, I really wish it wasn't someone suspected on child porn complaining about it. It certainly won't garner much support from the general public, informed or not.

That's true, but the public really needs to understand that this is not about protecting the guy with child porn on his laptop - it's about protecting all of us from unreasonable searches while they're on fishing expeditions for someone with child porn.

Re:Bad Case

[Harin_Teb]

As the other responder noted at the border they can do whatever they want.

The constitutional right against unwarranted searches applies only within the borders of the United States (not arguing whether it should or not, just stating the current law). Under that statement it is fine to search entering peoples documents / affects because they are not yet within the borders of the US (IE they may still be denied access).

What you are thinking of is the prohibition against unwarrented searches and seizures that is effective only within the USA's borders.

And yes, this DOES mean that the US can constitutionally raid someone's house in Canada with a warrant or probable cause. The thing that prevents them is the whole "not wanting to be in a war" thing.

Re:Bad Case

[Hoi Polloi]

Actually that won't help. A couple a few years back were arrested after they turned in film (pre digital camera days) to a store and the developer called the cops when she saw they had some photos of their kids playing naked in the water.

Soon they'll arrest parents for bathing their kids with thier clothes off.

Re:Bad Case

[sleigher]

A radio talk show host in the SF Bay Area is in court on charges of child porn. His excuse was that he was researching a book. I guess he could have been doing that but either way it is not good enough and he was indicted by a grand jury and will go to trial. Many people think he is being wrongly accused, I personally think he is a perv. You can research things, including child porn, without downloading it to have a local copy.

Re:Bad Case

[CheeseTroll]

I dunno about bathing, but if someone could invent a way to change a baby's diaper without taking their clothes off, that could save save parents' nose hairs from being burned off from the stench.

Re:Bad Case

[Vr6dub]

I saw it years ago and I agree that she didn't "act" like a child. The fact is though, he knew she was fourteen. So yes, she was a child. Call it what you want. Oh, and he pissed on her. So what we have is a grown man peeing on a fourteen year old girl.

Re:Bad Case

[Hoi Polloi]

Just use a cork, then you only have to change them once a week.

Re:Bad Case

[mazarin5]

It's happened already. (I don't know if this is the specific case I'm thinking of, but this article is related.)

Re:Bad Case

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is though, he knew she was fourteen. So yes, she was a child.

No, she was not a child, she was a minor. There is a difference.

Adolescents are no longer children, they are... well, adolescents. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Being attracted to post-pubescent teens is normal (that's what puberty is for), or did you think all that poking and pinching and admiring that your mom's friends did to you at 13 or 14 was just good-natured socializing?

Re:Bad Case

[acecamaro666]

PERVERT!

Re:Bad Case

[MrSteveSD]

A while back in the UK, the Police burst into the house of "suspected terrorists" and shot one of them (he survived). It turned out they were not terrorists at all and the police claimed the shooting was an accident. However, to reduce sympathy for the men, the police claimed they had found child porn on their computers. Later the child porn charges were quietly dropped.

Re:Bad Case

[mrchaotica]

While I agree with the privacy infringements, I really wish it wasn't someone suspected on child porn complaining about it. It certainly won't garner much support from the general public, informed or not.

And that's exactly why they accused him of having child porn instead of something else!

Re:Bad Case

[mrchaotica]

There is not now, nor has there ever been a right to privacy at border crossings... unwarranted searches at border crossings is standard practice, and has been for a while, and has been upheld as being constitutional.

And that's complete and utter bullshit, and always has been!

The Fourth Amendment:

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.

See how it says "people?" That does literally mean people. Not "citizens." Not "people in some particular place." Just people. Everywhere. Period. Full stop!

If I'm an American citizen in America, I have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If I'm an American in Afghanistan, I have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If I'm a fucking Afghan in Afghanistan, I still have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures! Now, granted, I might have trouble enforcing that right, but it still fucking exists!

Why is this so fucking hard for the dumbasses on the Supreme Court to fucking understand?!

Re:Bad Case

[Tim C]

Or you will be found hanging in your garden shed with a very convincing suicide note.

No need to fake a suicide - they'd be guilty of possessing and distributing child porn, not to mention various "perverting the course of justice" or blackmail type offences. There'd be enough to put them away for quite a while I'd imagine.

Re:Bad Case

[Stormwatch]

Well, a looong time ago, I heard about a man who posted a pic of his newborn child at his personal site, and the hosting service took the site down because that was "child porn". Makes you wonder, do they think kids are born clothed?

Re:Bad Case

[armareum]

You can fit a cork in your nose?

Re:Bad Case

[davidsyes]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=582901&cid=23785323

Re:Bad Case

[chrismcb]

While I agree with the privacy infringements, I really wish it wasn't someone suspected on child porn complaining about it. It certainly won't garner much support from the general public, informed or not. So what you are saying is, if the government wants to look at someone's laptop they should just accuse the person of having kiddie porn?

Re:Bad Case

[Vr6dub]

I'll give you that he doesn't fit the definition of a child molester. What he did is still illegal and gives major insight to his character. He was 35 at the time and most 13/14 year olds aren't able to fully comprehend that type of situation and are easily taken advantage of.

Re:Bad Case

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw it years ago and I agree that she didn't "act" like a child. The fact is though, he knew she was fourteen. So yes, she was a child. Call it what you want. Oh, and he pissed on her. So what we have is a grown man peeing on a fourteen year old girl.

So even though he was acquitted earlier today you still think he is guilty...

R Kelly claims he was not the person in the video. R Kelly has a mole which is not visible on the person in the video. The alleged victim claims she was not in the video either. Three of her friends also said it was not her. And how can you be so sure the girl in the video was a minor when you can't prove who it was?

Re:Bad Case

[mxs]

While I agree with the privacy infringements, You do ? Shame on you :P

I really wish it wasn't someone suspected on child porn complaining about it. It certainly won't garner much support from the general public, informed or not. That's generally the way to go if you want to get through some really restrictive legislation infringing on the public's rights -- parade some child porn asshole or child molester or child rapist or child abuser in front of the public, say that this new legislation will hurt that guy, and watch them all fall in line -- true or not, who would want to defend the rights of a CHILD molester, or even take the chance that he may be one.

In fact, I heard you were a child porn collector. Your opinion has no value, because you are clearly suspected of being a child porn collector. I just said it. Nobody is going to come to your rescue, since, quite possibly, you are the scum of the earth. Possibly. Let's not take any chances and shoot you on sight. You know. To be safe.

Re:Bad Case

[mxs]

We have protections and guaranteed rights (not granted ones) because we are protecting people from the system's possible abuses. Nice theory.

The border agents have access to you while you are not in the country yet. They can trample on your rights all they want -- after all, it does not happen inside the US.

Re:Bad Case

[mxs]

(Note that does not mean you are bound to give them the decryption key) Right you are, chap. You are just bound, gagged, and shipped off to Gitmo.

(or if you are lucky you're just detained and harrassed until the border agents find a new game to play that day -- just don't expect your computer back, the captain's niece needed a new laptop, anyway).

Re:Bad Case

[tonyr60]

A grand daughter is an ex premmie baby that is now "doing it" once a week. I can assure you that when it has been "baked" for near a week it is a lot more ripe than daily motions.

Re:Bad Case

[Geekbot]

Amen. The constitution doesn't list these as US citizenship given rights. They are named as God given rights specifically because an overpowered government could choose when and to what extent it could abuse people. More than 200 years and thousands upon thousands of US citizens lives given to protect freedom and here we debate whether or not the US government can choose when and where to suspend the rights of it's citizens.

Re:Bad Case

[mfnickster]

Amen. The constitution doesn't list these as US citizenship given rights. They are named as God given rights specifically because an overpowered government could choose when and to what extent it could abuse people.

Well put, although it's the Declaration of Independence, IIRC, that refers to people being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," not the Constitution.

BTW, did you hear what McCain said about the SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo?

"These are people who are not citizens; they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have...
"Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen."

Well, yeah... I thought that this country was founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights. Apparently McCain disagrees.

Re:Bad Case

[Doctor_Jest]

Bullshit.

Just because I'm not _in_ my country at the time I arrive _to_ my country... the border agents of _my_ country have no right to exclude the _rights_ I already have and are not subject to negotiation.

Re:Bad Case

[Geekbot]

Good catch. My mistake in typing out too fast without reviewing my own post.

My first reaction was that only citizens and not enemies should have rights. Then I realize the problem with that is that I am not going to be the one who decides if I'm an enemy or not. And it is not always the good guys who are calling those shots.

Re:Bad Case

[WK2]

"It's a fluke, from what I've understood of this case so far, that they uncovered child porn in the first place."

Not really. Remember the definition of kiddie porn. For all we know, this guy has a daughter, and has taken pictures of her. With clothes on. Or maybe he has a picture of a naked baby. Or maybe he has pictures of his children in the bathtub. Or maybe he's taken pictures of a 20-year old ex-girlfriend who he can no longer find to prove her age.

It's gotten to the point that it no longer means anything when the authorities claim someone has child porn. More often than not, they are just blowing smoke.

Re:Bad Case

[Doctor_Jest]

Good point. I don't know what they considered to be kiddie porn on this laptop, but the justification for going deeper into his laptop was the load of shit that no one (besides us) seems to be thinking about.

And of course, because it's 'kiddie porn', we're having difficulty getting people to focus on the _reason_ rather than the _result_. And that, to put it bluntly, is a goddamned shame.

Freedom shouldn't be something we have to force out of the hands of our elected officials... it's ours already... they have no right to take it away, and yet they are getting away with it.

Strong encryption for personal data

[pegr]

Strong encryption is obviously the answer to keeping data safe from prying eyes. What I don't think is legal is the government keeping an image of the disk just for having passewd through customs with encrypted data.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[jeiler]

Strong encryption is an answer, not the answer. In this particular case, there should have been no need for any encryption: computer data should not be searchable without a warrant or probable cause. And no, "I need to see if you're carrying pictures of naked kids" is not probable cause without substantive evidence of wrongdoing.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[Natrous SPE]

I thought there was a ruling somewhere that you are not covered by the 5th amendment if you do not tell them your password.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[Inf0phreak]

There are lots of good reasons to encrypt the data on your laptop, but keeping it from the eyes of U.S. customs agents is not one of those reasons. Because that customs agent will say "assume the position and supply the password!" and if you refuse, he/she will just confiscate the laptop or deny you entry to the country (note: "logical or") - oh, and you might get a body cavity search too just for good measure.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[BobMcD]

...computer data should not be searchable without a warrant or probable cause... I agree completely.

The traditional notions of privacy are no longer sufficient. We need a legal affirmation of privacy as a right here in America. It has thus far been assumed that one is entitled to privacy in your own home, as is reflected in the constitution, but our lives have extended WAY beyond that. In this age of instant global connections we need to attach privacy to the INDIVIDUAL - not merely that individual's home - and follow the notion through to every end of that individual's life.

Child pornography, though quite despicable, is NOT a border-control issue. I cannot imagine ANY kind of porn that would be such. In fact, I can't picture any kind of information that would fall under a border guard's purview at all. Think about it: If the same data could travel freely from state to state over the wire, what kind of restriction should one apply at the border?

No, there is no good reason for such a search, and it is only being allowed because our citizens have no right to privacy. If there were such a right, the need to respect it would greatly outweigh some bored TSA's curiosity.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[jeiler]

We need a legal affirmation of privacy as a right here in America. Griswold v. Conneticut provides an explicit statement of the implicit right.

Child pornography, though quite despicable, is NOT a border-control issue.

Now, here I disagree ... sort of. Border patrol agents are law enforcement agents: if they have a court order, or a warrant, to search a particular person's laptop, they are then authorized to do so. However, I quite agree that laptop contents should not be searchable without court authority.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[BobMcD]

Griswold v. Conneticut provides an explicit statement of the implicit right. Yes, sort of, for married couples as it relates to their sex lives. Again, though, the concept is attached to what was already deemed private. I'm getting at the sort of privacy one should reasonably be able to expect even when in public.

The right to keep your genitals covered is one example of this. The right to keep your laptop's content safe from prying eyes is, at least to me, similar. In either case the state may have a need that outweighs this right, either to enforce the law or uphold the common good, but in most cases your privacy is respected. The part that worries me the most is the notion that the act of crossing the border somehow voids your protection from illegal search and seizure. They wouldn't be able to stop you on the street and go fishing for porn, so why at the border?

Border patrol agents are law enforcement agents: if they have a court order, or a warrant, to search a particular person's laptop, they are then authorized to do so. However, I quite agree that laptop contents should not be searchable without court authority. Border patrol agents should be primarily tasked with ensuring that no illegal imports or persons physically enter the country. Digital entry not-withstanding... Even were such a warrant issued, this IS NOT their mission. Instead they should hand such and individual and their notebook to the FBI. In cases where a hand-off to the FBI is not called for, no action need be taken at all.

Again, I suspect that this behavior is only possible because there is no presumption of protection against it.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[Anonymous Coward]

"In this particular case, there should have been no need for any encryption: computer data should not be searchable without a warrant or probable cause."

Customs officials have always had the right to search you for anything without probable cause. They don't have to have any evidence to open up your suitcase to search for anything illegal, be it drugs, alcohol, meats, etc.

The whole point of customs is to stop illegal substances/objects/documents/whatever from entering the country, and you'll have a bloody hard time convincing anyone that illegal data is conceptually any different from illegal substances.

As long as they have the right to search your body cavities without warrant they have the right to search your laptop without warrant or probable cause. They have the right to take your laptop apart to look for drugs and they have the right to check your files for child pornography or plans to blow up the Pentagon.

You can always argue that it is pointless to search for data, since you can so easily "smuggle" it in via the Internet anyway, but this is more likely to yield a change in guidelines (i.e. don't bother spending much manpower on this) than a change of law.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[unlametheweak]

Border patrol agents should be primarily tasked with ensuring that no illegal imports or persons physically enter the country. Digital entry not-withstanding... Even were such a warrant issued, this IS NOT their mission. Interesting point. Almost everyday I export and import information over boarders and to various parts of the world. Today and right now I am accessing the US. I'm sure the (US) government(s) would love to know who I am and what information I am transmitting across their boarders. I am very much a Digital Citizen and a world traveler through the medium of the Internet.

It seems like many governments think this analogy is justification for Internet surveillance.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[blueswan1]

As has been said in other comments elsewhere, using a hidden volume will get around this. This will work especially well if you work in a business where it is believable that security might be an issue.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[mxs]

computer data should not be searchable without a warrant or probable cause. And what jurisdiction would that warrant be signed off by ? Certainly not a US one, since the people being subjected to these searches are not inside the US yet. Probable cause ? Pfft. You don't even need probable cause to be searched thoroughly just to fly from one airport in the US to another.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[mxs]

The traditional notions of privacy are no longer sufficient. We need a legal affirmation of privacy as a right here in America. While that would be splendid, it would not curtail any actions taken by border agents -- seeing as how their subjects are not IN America, yet, and they have the power to deny entry.

Think about it: If the same data could travel freely from state to state over the wire, what kind of restriction should one apply at the border? It all has to appear secure so the fearful masses are appeased. There is no actualy security achieved by this, but at least Uncle Bob in TN believes that the evil terrorists with their childporn-computers cannot attack his hometown because the border control people really do their jobs. You can see it on TV !

No, there is no good reason for such a search, and it is only being allowed because our citizens have no right to privacy. If there were such a right, the need to respect it would greatly outweigh some bored TSA's curiosity. If only. As said, you are not inside the US while that search is taking place. You cannot cry foul.

Re:Strong encryption for personal data

[BobMcD]

If only. As said, you are not inside the US while that search is taking place. You cannot cry foul. Ironically enough, SCOTUS just effectively ruled otherwise. In the recent Gitmo ruling, they specifically admonished the administration for doing an end-run around the rule of law by conducting activities outside of America. The court's opinion was that any sovereign area under our control was subject to our constitution...

As it should be!

I don't understand the argument

[niceone]

I would rather they couldn't search laptops, but I don't understand the argument put forward here. For example, if I had "privileged legal communications" in my suitcase they could still open it, right?

Re:I don't understand the argument

[morgan_greywolf]

I would rather they couldn't search laptops, but I don't understand the argument put forward here. For example, if I had "privileged legal communications" in my suitcase they could still open it, right?

The reason they can search your suitcase is that it might have a bomb in it. Of course, I think that violates the 4th Amendment too (and I think many would agree), but I understand their point.

OTOH, a file on the HDD can't contain a real bomb, only a virtual bomb. Virtual bombs don't blow up airplanes.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[Ihlosi]

The reason they can search your suitcase is that it might have a bomb in it.

Customs doesn't search for bombs. They search for anything that is illegal to bring into the country (drugs, weapons, large amounts of cash without proper paperwork, certain kinds of foodstuffs, etc).

Re:I don't understand the argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual bombs don't blow up airplanes.

Not yet anyway, maybe later.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[s0litaire]

doesn't the X-Ray machines you pass your bags through show up most of this stuff anyway? and if something suspicious pops up on the X-Ray screen then Customs have probably cause to open the bags. Also the difference between the laptop and a suitcase is that the can't take your suitcase away and photocopy / photograph the entire contents without proper cause. They can take an entire copy of your Hard Drive off of your laptop for no reason.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[Ihlosi]

doesn't the X-Ray machines you pass your bags through show up most of this stuff anyway?

Your bags don't get sent through x-ray machines after you've landed.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[querist]

The difference here, though, is that they can look at a file folder, see paper, an realize that there is no bomb. In theory, their search should stop there. Unless they have a specific reason to read the documents, they shouldn't.

On the computer, however, they are looking at the content of the files to try to find "suspicious" materials. This is a more difficult situation because, in order to differentiate between "acceptable" and "suspicious", they must examine the contents of the files. This is not as simple as looking for a timer, wires, and a blob of explosive material in a suitcase.

Let me offer a similar, non-computer example.

Your car is pulled over, and the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you were driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer is allowed, required, and in good common sense would, look around the inside of your car to be sure you don't have any weapons.

What if, in the course of that examination, the officer finds the makings of a bomb, an automatic weapon, a large quantity of clearly illegal drugs, or obvious child pornography? Can the officer act on that discovery even though that had nothing to do with the original reason to search? Yes, I suspect that the officer would be able to act. (IANAL)

When searching a computer for suspicious materials, the contents of files must be examined. During this search, similar to the hypothetical example above, the agent finds something suspicious. Remember, in many Asian countries, the women tend to be smaller in all ways than women of European descent. To someone unfamiliar with Asian women, they _may_ appear to be "underage".

Based on that initial, uninformed assessment, the agent would then proceed under the suspicion that there was "child porn" on the machine.

Unfortunately, this makes sense.

The issue is that the laws were created, and for the most part work, in a world that did not include portable computers and digital media. The laws have not caught up with the current world, and people are suffering for it.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[mdwh2]

There's a difference between opening up your laptop and taking a look, versus taking a copy to investigate later or, as in this case, confiscating the laptop.

The idea that they need to search for "illegal information" seems rather odd to me anyway - if someone wanted to bring in child abuse images, surely they would use less risky ways than passing them through customs? It seems more like a fishing expedition to get people for anything that happens to be dodgy on their hard disk.

What happens if a US traveller goes to a country that has less than liberal laws on adult images - perhaps that private image of your girlfriend tucked away on your laptop isn't legal there, or perhaps that video is banned? It's the information equivalent of people being imprisoned for poppy seeds in food and over the counter drugs, with the difference that it's a lot harder to make sure your laptop is scrubbed of everything that might be illegal in that country, compared with simply not taking physical objects (unless you don't take the laptop at all, which'd be simpler, but also a significant cost).

Re:I don't understand the argument

[hughk]

Your car is pulled over, and the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you were driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer is allowed, required, and in good common sense would, look around the inside of your car to be sure you don't have any weapons.

When you step out of the car you lock the door, the officer doesn't normally have a right to search your car unless there really is probable cause, i.e., a gun or a spliff in plain sight. You may politely refuse the search.

I don't know wheteher similar rules apply to standard law-enforcement officers with computers, that is a logged-out computer requires a warrant.

The thing is that customs officers have more rights.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[goaliemn]

The difference here, though, is that they can look at a file folder, see paper, an realize that there is no bomb
people are getting customs and TSA mixed up.. this has nothing to do with looking for explosives.. it has to do with looking for illegal imports.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[scummable]

They can be. I came back into the country last year and randomly got selected for the agricultural scan. They put my bags through the x-ray and then searched my bag insisting that I had an orange somewhere. It turned out to be a roll of tape...

Re:I don't understand the argument

[mrchaotica]

Your car is pulled over, and the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that you were driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer is allowed, required, and in good common sense would, look around the inside of your car to be sure you don't have any weapons.

This is not true. In fact, there is a video by some civil rights group that explains, among other things, how when you're asked to step out of your car you should lock the door behind you to prevent the officer from "assuming" you gave him permission to search. Ah, here it is.

Re:I don't understand the argument

[Obfuscant]

The officer is allowed, required, and in good common sense would, look around the inside of your car ...

Of course. But he is limited to 'in plain sight'. He cannot open the glove compartment just to see if you have a weapon under this self-protection justification. He cannot pull out the back seat. He cannot turn on the radio to see what station you were tuned to. Not until he either gets permission to search your vehicle from you, or gets a search warrant.

And that's where the analogy fails. You have to turn on your laptop for them to see what is on it. It isn't 'in plain sight'.

By the way, locking your car to prevent a search is not a good idea. If the cop really wants to search your car and you refuse, he'll simply hold you until he gets a warrant. Then he gets to break your window when you refuse to open it. That, and you are now an uncooperative suspect, and he's going to treat you like you know you are doing something wrong.

That means, instead of you being able to get off by saying "I'm a carpenter" when he finds the crowbar and screwdrivers, he's going to think "burglar tools." It's your funeral.

Good luck with that one! LOL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Run from phantom, non-existent terrorists hiding around every corner! Privacy was such a nice concept, now appears to very quaint today. I would love to take my kids to Disneyland ( although I hate bloody Disney!), no way I am going anywhere near the US. My Missus and I would love to visit her brother, who she hasn't seen in 9 years, apart from over a grainy webcam, but there's is no way until those in control in the US, get a fecking grip on reality and stop treating everyone without a US passport like Bin Laden's favourite, every time we want fun-in-the-sun! I wish the EFF good luck, but somehow, the paranoics in charge of the US, will shoot this down in a flash.

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[Muad'Dave]

Dude, this was AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. They treat us like Bin Laden's favorite, too.

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[morgan_greywolf]

Dude, this was AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. They treat us like Bin Laden's favorite, too.

Right. It's not about paranoia regarding 9/11 or anything else. It's about control. Scare everyone to death, make everyone walk around with papers, take away everyone's rights and tell them it has it's for their own protection against the big, bad ugly terrorists.

Anyone know the last time this tactic was used? Oh yeah, Nazi Germany.

(first Godwin!)

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[interstellar_donkey]

Um, have you been to Heathrow? That place is as scary and gives off the impression of totalitarian authority as much as any US airport.

My favorite is the polite recording that plays every few minutes that says "unattended baggage will be . . . destroyed".

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[Muad'Dave]

I agree wholeheartedly. I used to be a Republican until they started taking away rights not 'for the babies' as the left does, but in the name of 'the war on terror'. My own government is the only organization terrorizing me.

They're turning me into a real conspiracy theorist, let me tell you.

Oceania at war with East Asia, no Eurasia, anyone?

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[sukotto]

No, this is the "good" treatment. If they think you might be Bin Laden's favorite then they disappear you and you're never heard from again (Except maybe in a show trial with secret evidence and/or information they acquired by torturing you)

America has become a scary place.

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[cliffski]

I've been through Heathrow, its a polite picnic compared to the US. I got married in the USA and would love to revisit yosemite and vegas, But not while I'm treated as a terrorist on arrival. that ruins my holiday Mood. I spend my leisure money here in Europe instead thanks (or Canada).

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[morgan_greywolf]

I used to be a Republican

I'm sorry.

They're turning me into a real conspiracy theorist, let me tell yo

BTW--where's your copy of 'Catcher in the Rye'?

Seriously, I don't care if anyone calls me a crackpot. Go for it. But don't expect me to help you when the revolution comes.

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[jefu]

Anyone know the last time this tactic was used? Oh yeah, Nazi Germany. Somehow I doubt it was the last time the tactic was used. Though not necessarily with "terrorists" as the representatives of ickiness.

Re:Good luck with that one! LOL!

[Fred_A]

It's about control. Scare everyone to death, make everyone walk around with papers, take away everyone's rights and tell them it has it's for their own protection against the big, bad ugly terrorists.

Anyone know the last time this tactic was used? Oh yeah, Nazi Germany. Not exactly, it's still used efficiently in several places around the globe. China currently uses a variant (minus the terrorist bit). Makes for an efficient production machine too.

ZOMG Naked people!

[morgan_greywolf]

He's got NAKED PEOPLE on his laptop! Detain him!

Seriously, the ruling is un-Constitutional and clearly in violation of the 4th Amendment. Maybe it's time we start asserting our 2nd Amendment rights.

Re:ZOMG Naked people!

[TrashGod]

"...NAKED PEOPLE on his laptop?" Well, so does the judge http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/11/2056247.

Do they really have a right?

[Rik Sweeney]

Can't I just refuse to let them access my laptop? Sure, they can turn it on to prove that it's really a laptop and not a bomb, but besides that they shouldn't be allowed to go through photos of me giving my 6 month old son a bath.

Personally, what I'm more worried about is that the pillock on customs manages to erase data from my computer / SD card.

Re:Do they really have a right?

[jeti]

AFAIK you're free to refuse. But you won't be allowed to enter the US.

Re:Do they really have a right?

[s0litaire]

I think if you refuse to start the laptop or refuse to give them the password to log on, then they can take the laptop off of you, or refuse you entry to/ exit from, the US. They will probably take the laptop off you and copy the entire contents, if you're lucky you'll get the laptop back in 6 months...

Re:Do they really have a right?

[Harin_Teb]

You sure can!

Of course that will promptly be followed by their refusing you access to the US. But hey, fairs fair!

Re:Do they really have a right?

[Abcd1234]

The problem is, US citizens have the right to enter the country... so where does the nation's right of refusal end and the citizen's right of entry begin?

It was never a problem before.

[arthurpaliden]

In the past, the time before computers, you never traveled with all your personel papers, love letters, note books, and your corporate trade secrets in your luguage because the border gaurds would be searching your stuff and possible reading it. So why is storing it on a computer so different. If you do not want it looked at don't put it there.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[mikael]

And these things happened before the days of computers. There was a case where a pair of teenagers who had watched a TV interview with a Playboy photographer, had decided to do their own photo-shoot. Unfortunately, they lived in a Christian fundamentalist area in the deep South, and when they had the photographs developed, the lab technician took offence and called in the Police. The guy was arrested for underage porn.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[pla]

you never traveled with all your personel papers, love letters, note books, and your corporate trade secrets in your luguage because the border gaurds would be searching your stuff and possible reading it. So why is storing it on a computer so different.

Because I can't realistically take the contents of my desk, my filing cabinet, my credenza, my photo albums, and my "memento box" with me every time I decide to take a quick trip to Montreal.

I can, however, take my laptop.

Similarly, while I don't need to take all those physical things to do an on-site service call for an important Canadian customer, I absolutely do need to take my laptop.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is storing it on a computer so different. If you do not want it looked at don't put it there. What's the point of having a computer if you can't use it to store anything remotely useful to your job, career, or company?

Re:It was never a problem before.

[MichaelSmith]

The guy was arrested for underage porn. Which guy? The lab technician?

Re:It was never a problem before.

[SlashTon]

Times change. It wasn't a problem in "the time before computers", because it was not possible (or at least not very practical) then to carry all your personal papers. And even then some people did travel, carrying private papers or letters. And I suspect back then you could reasonably expect these papers NOT to be "routinely" (an important phrase in this whole discussion) read by border 'gaurds' (people, Slashdot has an automated spell checker, use it, please). Because of changes in technology and society, people now can and often have to (business trips) store this kind of information on laptops.

Why should it be considered a routine matter for a border agent to be able to access all personal data, when it is not even a routine matter for the police to get this access? Yes yes, entering a country, import restrictions and all that. My point is that I agree with the EFF on this that it should not simply be considered equal to searching a briefcase or gas tank. This whole subject requires very careful consideration.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[corbettw]

Then store that stuff on a server, and only keep your OS and the applications needed to read those files installed on your laptop. How hard is that?

Re:It was never a problem before.

[b4dc0d3r]

Your comment basically says "don't take advantage of new, convenient technologies because someone wants to do something they have no need of doing".

That's a horrible idea, and I don't see how anyone in this audience found it insightful. Putting personal pictures on a business laptop, or including financial information on a business notebook because the institution is only open at the same hours you are at work - these seem like reasonable uses of modern technology.

If anything, items such as you described are more secure now, because you typically need to log in, then find a document, and open it up - not accidentally read it when it pops out of one of your hundred pockets, or come across it when looking for something that can explode.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[geminidomino]

No, the teenager.

That's right, the "victim" was also the "perpetrator."

http://www.theagitator.com/2007/02/10/sex-crime-stupidity/

Re:It was never a problem before.

[houghi]

If you do not want it looked at don't put it there.

In other words: if you have nothing to hide ...

And no, previously if they saw the papers you carries, they verified if they were papers. They would NOT read the content. Do would NOT search on content (unless there was probable cause) ON the papers.
They did not develop your undeveloped pictures to look at your pictures. They just verfied that the film was indeed film (and sometimes ruin it in the process). They did not look at content of the film.

So it is completely different. They used to look at items. To see if a box of sigarettes was actualy a box of cigarettes and not contraband. They did not read the small print on the box.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[couchslug]

"Similarly, while I don't need to take all those physical things to do an on-site service call for an important Canadian customer, I absolutely do need to take my laptop.'

You don't need to take the SAME laptop, and also have the option to store personal stuffs on removable media.
I certainly wouldn't mix work and personal computers. That's just creating a "data loss multiplier" when the thing breaks or gets stolen...

If I need a tool for a job, the job pays for it one way or the other.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[Lodragandraoidh]

Just have FEDEX ship it overnight to your destination. Pick it up and go to work when you get there. Do the reverse when coming back.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you do what I do, going the other way - You swap out your hard drive for a clean one. It is a pain in the ass, but these are the times we live in. I cannot guarantee my computer hasn't been compromised, and the penalties are such that I will not take that chance. You are a fool to assume you will be treated fairly. It's pretty easy to do on most modern notebooks.

There is no arguing with border control agents. You smile and do what they want you to.

Welcome to 2008.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[noidentity]

Furthermore, it's extra work to avoid taking all of one's data if one keeps it all on the laptop. Sure, one can encrypt it and even leave the key at home (effectively leaving the data at home), but then they'll just claim encryption is evidence of wrong doing.

Re:It was never a problem before.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only times I have been searched (and that's EVERY time) is by Canadian customs who insist at examining random files on my laptop. In fact the idea of being a laptop on a day trip seems to be foreign to them. American customs just ask about fruit and vegetables and ignore everything else.

So what would I do...

[Anonymous Coward]

...with my company laptop which I will bring with me this monday ? Should I let it be searched by customs, or should I call the legal department of my (very large) company to handle the situation ?

As this is on topic here, some advice would be nice :)

Re:So what would I do...

[Ihlosi]

...with my company laptop which I will bring with me this monday ?

Don't bring it with you. Or don't have any important information on it.

Should I let it be searched by customs, or should I call the legal department of my (very large) company to handle the situation ?

To answer this question, first consider this simple question: Who will the customs officer detain/subject to full cavity search/deport/mark for disappearance - the person carrying the object in question or some companys legal department ?

Re:So what would I do...

[dthomas9]

You ask your legal department for advice, before you travel.

Re:So what would I do...

[mdmkolbe]

If you are not flying internationally, this doesn't effect you. This is about customs agents, not the TSA.

If you are flying internationally, consult your companies legal department before you leave. At the very least it may raise awareness in the company that this might be a problem and if companies start to dislike the idea maybe they can get it changed.

Re:So what would I do...

[interstellar_donkey]

Depends. Would your company's legal department and bosses back you up here? If so, call 'em. The border agents might detain you, have you arrested, throw you in jail, give you a file with homeland security (I mean, a negitive file) etc. etc.

If you're willing to go through all of that, and know that your company won't leave you high and dry, then call 'em. Otherwise, no.

Re:So what would I do...

[sukotto]

You use GNU Shred to wipe all the data off.
After you arrive in the US, you connect to your corporate intranet via VPN and download the stuff you need.

This makes it hard to get anything done on the plane though.

If you're really security conscious, you'll encrypt the stuff you download or you'll keep everything on the corp intranet and only have the apps on the laptop.

Oh, and make sure you set all your applications to request your password when they start up (that goes for online resources too). Otherwise they can easily browse to your email just by turning on your machine.

Re:So what would I do...

[ipfwadm]

You use GNU Shred to wipe all the data off. After you arrive in the US, you connect to your corporate intranet via VPN and download the stuff you need. Be sure to read the filesystem-specific caveats in the shred man page. It doesn't always work as expected.

Let me know how that goes

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives have quite the fight on their hands.

Really all the government has to do is use the branding of we are looking for child pornography terriosts that have weapons of mass destruction and guess what, poof there goes any right to privacy. Right now, they pretty much have a free ticket to do just about what ever they please.

Every time I hear stories similar to this I think back to an episode of the Simpsons, where Helen Lovejoy keeps saying, "Won't somebody think of the childern?" It was satire that they would do just about anything, if it was for the childern.

Historians will look back on two things this decade, how hurricane katrina changed how oil companies charge people for gas (they can also do just about anything they want) and how 9/11 affected personal freedoms and privacy.

Re:Let me know how that goes

[danbert8]

How exactly did hurricane katrina change how oil companies charge for gas? Last time I filled up, it was the same as before katrina. You can either pay at the pump with a credit/debit/prepaid card or you can go in and pay with whatever form of payment is accepted. Isn't that the same as it's been since electronic transactions came around?
 
And yes, oil companies can do whatever they want (providing it's legal). That's called freedom. You also can do just about anything you want (providing it's legal) including buying less gas, or not buying it at all. Don't blame the oil companies for raising the price of the oil that YOU raised the demand for.

Re:Let me know how that goes

[morcheeba]

The government has already done this .. airport screening is done for security, but they also search for drugs. If doped-up people on planes were really a security risk, they'd stop serving alcohol. They might as well turn air travel in to a 4th-amendment ignoring government checkpoint for everything else.

Re:Let me know how that goes

[toddhisattva]

How exactly did hurricane katrina change how oil companies charge for gas? Let me try!

The Federal Government did not override Louisiana's state rights, and this can be spun as "bad Federal response."

The head of the national government is President George W. Bush!

George Bush does everything for oil. He's talking to Benny 16th today about oil. He has the White House chef fry chicken in Light Sweet Crude for that West Texas flavor.

Therefore, the oil companies are evil. Halliburton!

Q.E.F.D.

Re:Let me know how that goes

[ohcrapitssteve]

Pre-Katrina, gas in the Philadelphia area was about $2.40/gal for 87 octane. Directly after, it edged over $3 for the first time in my lifetime. The reason big oil gave was that the Hurricane knocked one of their major gulf-coast-region plants off line.

This more seemed to me like an attempt to see just how much they could charge acceptably. Legal? Yes. Scummy? Very.

Waiting for another Geek Squad incident...

[FataL187]

I wonder how long it will be before we hear about how the customs agents have a shared collection of porn from all the hard drives they search.

Re:Waiting for another Geek Squad incident...

[networkconsultant]

*cough* it's an industry standard practice *cough*

Re:Waiting for another Geek Squad incident...

[blankoboy]

Not to mention: password lists for people's bank accounts, email accounts, websites, etc.
How long will it be before they start searching people randomly on the street and entering homes.
Johnny Mnemonic time is around the corner sooner thank I thought.

Re:Waiting for another Geek Squad incident...

[cffrost]

They could even set up a pay website, "Hardly Legal."

Re:Waiting for another Geek Squad incident...

[Anonymous Coward]

In SoCal, there is compelling evidence that more than a few auto dealership service departments, and independent repair shops have gigs of data on a computer or two in the service areas. Simply find any disc, flash drive, etc. pop it in the computer and copy data off. I personally know of one shop that has 200+ GB of music, and another 150+ GB of porno, all from customers. All on 2 320GB MyBooks (one Mac, one PC) attached to the workstations in a Service Writer's office.

Boot to command line

[assemblerex]

Clearly these people are stupid enough to think that my mouthwash and nail clippers are lethal weapons.

I doubt they have the faintest idea what to do when confronted with a command line.

"How do you start windows?"

Re:Boot to command line

[robot_love]

Let's say you do that.

Which of the following two scenarios is more likely:

1. Government official says, "this guy is obviously a smart ass. I'd better just give him back his things and let him go."

2. Government offiical says, "this guy is a smart ass. I'd better confiscate his computer permanently."

I mean, I realize it's funny to say they won't know how to deal with a command prompt, but if you think that their ignorance will lead to them leaving you to pass unmolested, you're being hopelessly naive. You might as well suggest that if you simply put a lock on your briefcase and claim you don't have the keys they're going to wave you right through.

No. No they're not going to do that. You won't like what they're going to do.

Re:Boot to command line

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they have the faintest idea what to do when confronted with a command line. I'm pretty sure they know what to do... and I'm pretty sure you won't enjoy it.

It will be something along the lines of "detain this traveler until we can figure out what's going on."

Re:Boot to command line

[qbast]

Oh, they do. Detain you until specialists arrive.

Re:Boot to command line

[Alsee]

Better yet when they get that command line and they come to you asking what to do, start screaming at them "What did you do to my computer?! YOU BROKE MY WINDOWS!"

-

Re:Boot to command line

[assemblerex]

"I only use this machine as an input output device for work, it doesn't run windows."

$9.00 per hour TSA Agent nods

But I have to throw out the mouthwash, right?

Yes Sir, I'm sorry.

No problem.

Have a nice day.

Re:Boot to command line

[DrLang21]

Just put your own copyrighted nude pictures on the desktop. When they copy them, sue them for copyright infringement following RIAA standards of damages.

Re:Boot to command line

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Government official says, "this guy is a smart ass. I'd better haul him to the back room and perform a body cavity search. That will make his ass smart. hehe"

Re:Boot to command line

[zoloto]

Actually I've done just that. They asked to see the laptop and it booted to a cli interface. even after logging in (dummy account) the guy didn't know what to do and when he asked if it could be booted to windows for him to look around, I got a strange look when telling him it didn't run windows.

He sort of chuckled and said he didn't know that was possible but didn't care. no gui to him meant no pics apparently.

no strip search, no confiscation, no disk cloning.

*waves his hand* "this isn't the laptop we're looking for... move along"

Re:Boot to command line

[savorymedia]

Alternately, if you're male, cover your desktop with pictures of your own penis. "Mine1.jpg", "Mine2.jpg", "Mine3.jpg". I don't think they're going to search much farther after that. ;)

Re:Boot to command line

[kemushi88]

Seems like it would be best to auto-boot to a clean windows install, and keep all your secret stuff on a linux partition that you wouldn't be able to see from Windows.

Pervs/terrorists/spys never buy thumb drives

[gatkinso]

or other such media.

They teach this in PTS school.

Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Later, when Arnold was detained...

So let me get this straight, he was detained for having pictures of naked people on his laptop? What the hell has that to do with the security of the flight? Or terrorism? I'm truly in awe of what's happened in the age of terrorist paranoia.

Re:Paranoia

[Ihlosi]

What the hell has that to do with the security of the flight?

Nothing. And that's perfectly ok - customs doesn't care about the security of flights, because they search your stuff after the flight is over. They're looking for things that are illegal to bring into the country (narcotics, weapons, large amounts of cash without proper paperwork, certain kinds of foodstuffs, etc).

Re:Paranoia

[Mattsson]

But what files is illegal to bring into the US?
Well, child-porn is obvious... But that can't be the only thing they look for, right?
What else?

That Eeee pc looks better and better

[kurt555gs]

The time is coming that using a 'throw away' laptop will be needed for all foreign trips. Everyone will need a server in some 'safe' country to upload everything to, documents and pictures will be needed to be uploaded to Google Docs and Picasa respectively. Any pictures, or letters that were on the laptop will need to be deep erased.

then , just add the cost of having the mini laptop seized to every trip.

Seems simple to me.

Re:That Eeee pc looks better and better

[MichaelSmith]

The time is coming that using a 'throw away' laptop will be needed for all foreign trips. Everyone will need a server in some 'safe' country to upload everything to, documents and pictures will be needed to be uploaded to Google Docs and Picasa respectively. Any pictures, or letters that were on the laptop will need to be deep erased. But to access your information store with any decent level of security you still need to carry a secret across a border. If the secret is a GPG key they can still try to get the passphrase off you, then when you access your data they can intercept the data stream and decrypt it.

I don't think this method is more than a stopgap.

Re:That Eeee pc looks better and better

[geminidomino]

documents and pictures will be needed to be uploaded to Google Docs and Picasa respectively. Brilliant. The whole brouhaha is about keeping your private data private, and you suggest giving it to google. :)

Re:That Eeee pc looks better and better

[Dopefish_1]

But to access your information store with any decent level of security you still need to carry a secret across a border. If the secret is a GPG key they can still try to get the passphrase off you, then when you access your data they can intercept the data stream and decrypt it.

So just keep the GPG key on the server with your data, and memorize the passphrase. Then the only "secret" you're carrying across the border is in your head, with no outside indication that it exists. This should keep you safe until they make deep brain scans mandatory to enter the country.

I told you so

[bytesex]

I've said it before; trade secrets will be the most important aspect of this (whether or not they should be is of minor importance); especially for foreign business travelers, since American intelligence agencies have shown themselves time and again incapable to contain themselves when it comes to passing around business secrets to local competitors.

Re:I told you so

[MichaelSmith]

I've said it before; trade secrets will be the most important aspect of this (whether or not they should be is of minor importance); especially for foreign business travelers, since American intelligence agencies have shown themselves time and again incapable to contain themselves when it comes to passing around business secrets to local competitors. The secret you are carrying might actually be US government IP, which you are just not allowed to show to the people at the border, even though they work for the same organisation.

Re:I told you so

[JasterBobaMereel]

No you are missing the point - they can search you and your property for anything that might be illegal to bring into the country

If what you have is Government secrets then either you are breaking the law by carrying them on an international flight, or they are in the diplomatic baggage (which customs cannot search)

You have three options

1) do not carry anything you don't want customs to look at
2) do not travel internationally
3) expect customs to look at what you are carrying...

Re:I told you so

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret you are carrying might actually be US government IP, which you are just not allowed to show to the people at the border, even though they work for the same organisation. In which case you probably have appropriate diplomatic/government credentials exempting you from search. I've been told that some people with Top Secret clearances routinely carry id exempting them from search by TSA/customs.

Customs Agents != TSA

[mdmkolbe]

This is about border agents, so it has nothing to do with bombs. It is about illegal or undeclared goods being smuggled into the country.

So the argument will go that as long as certain forms of information are illegal to bring into the country, in order to do their job (stopping smugglers) the customs agents need to be able to search for illegal information. I'm not saying I agree with that argument, but in order to convince anyone other than the choir you need to understand the real issues and not some straw man argument about bombs.

Any counter argument will have to indirectly argue that customs agents don't have to keep illegal data out of the country. For copyright, such an argument is easy to make (e.g. "customs agents have no way to tell if a work on a laptop is involved in criminal infringement they may have permission from the copyright holder or it may be fair use"). For child porn, the argument is harder. The court will likely end up weighing the cost of invading people's privacy against the benefit of stopping child porn at the border. Given that the technique has already proven effective (they caught the guy), guess which one the courts will side with.

Again I'm not saying I agree with the government's position, but you have to know your enemy and the battle ground in order to win.

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[1u3hr]

The court will likely end up weighing the cost of invading people's privacy against the benefit of stopping child porn at the border. Given that the technique has already proven effective (they caught the guy), guess which one the courts will side with.

But of course there ISN'T any benefit. There are many other ways of transmitting images from one country to another, securely, aside from putting them on a laptop hard disk and carrying it on a plane. Obviously this does nothing to protect the innocent citizens of the country the perve is entering. Sure, you caught a guy with naughty, perhaps even illegal, images. So what? That does not justify random fishing expedition searches. The same argument would allow the police to have the power to enter any office or home and examine anyone's computer, when no doubt they'd find all kinds of illegal things.

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[gstoddart]

This is about border agents, so it has nothing to do with bombs. It is about illegal or undeclared goods being smuggled into the country.

Well, let's face it. Rightly or wrongly, border agents have become the "first line of defense" for the security apparatchik -- they cover much more than undeclared good and duties.

Governments have made their function much more about securing the borders and keeping out people we don't want lately. And, consequently, their searches have become much more invasive.

Cheers

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[sammyF70]

Even for child porn, it can become a rather foggy issue. I, for one, have photos of naked kids on my HD. They are my own daughters, they are taking a bath or just waiting to get new diapers (and incredibly cute, but that's probably a father's pride talking:) and 2 years old.

*I* know they are my kids, and I also don't see anything wrong with those pictures. But what would a custom official who thinks pictures of grown up naked women are suspicious make of them?

Notice how they never say that it WAS child porn, but "that they believed [them] to be child pornography".

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ha, isn't sad that empathy for different viewpoints must be padded so heavily with disclaimers?

Seriously though, unlike physical goods, airports are not the only point of entry for digital goods. In most homes, businesses, and many public venues, we have access to something euphemistically known as the information superhighway. It's immediate, it's cheap, and it can be virtually anonymous. Laptop checks are obsolete on arrival.

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just about keeping "illegal" things out of the country. If your name is on some watch list, you will get flaged for secondary screening and be under servaliance. They can get info such as your address book in your cell phone. I have seen the "searchers" even pickup garbage (cdr's, papers) they see you throw in the garbage at the end of the line while waiting

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you can easily transmit illegal data over the internet, allowing customs agents to search for it will do nothing to prevent people from getting it into the country.

Plus, what illegal data are we talking about here? Are customs agents going to arrest everyone who has a copy of a hollywood movie on their hard drive, or a song? No? Well then what illegal data ARE they going to enforce at the border? The only thing I can think of is images of pedophillia, and the number of people you'll catch with that is NOT worth the time and effort of searching laptops at random at the border which could be better spent looking for contraband.

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[Prof.Phreak]

Any counter argument will have to indirectly argue that customs agents don't have to keep illegal data out of the country.

How about: if there's a way to get the same data into the country via the Internet (by encrypting, ftp-ing, and wiping the drive before crossing border), then there's no real -point- to waste money in searching said things---as no ``real criminal'' would be caught.

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Pervert. You should have your dick chopped off and go to jail for life.

[/sarcasm]

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[sammyF70]

You mean, "The standard penalty for posting on slashdot and having actual children (aka. having have sex at least once in your lifetime) is castration"?

Damn ... should have posted the first answer as AN I guess :P

Re:Customs Agents != TSA

[mrchaotica]

Any counter argument will have to indirectly argue that customs agents don't have to keep illegal data out of the country.

Or that there is no such thing as "illegal data."

And why not

[VincenzoRomano]

also browsing the traveller's books, post-its (tm), cameras, camcorders, USB sticks, cell phone memory ... and so on?

Re:And why not

[Ihlosi]

also browsing the traveller's books, post-its (tm), cameras, camcorders, USB sticks, cell phone memory ... and so on?

They're already doing that, too. Oops.

Re:And why not

[VincenzoRomano]

Don't think so: it'd take hours to check a single passenger. And skills, technology and ... a brain.

Re:And why not

[Ihlosi]

Don't think so:

Oh really ?

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/90325

And they're not checking every single passenger, of course. But for the ones that do get checked, the procedure may take hours.

Re:And why not

[VincenzoRomano]

You are definitely right! Interesting article the one you mention.
A 2GB micro-SD I have in my phone can easily pass any control without being noticed by dropping it into a pocket or a suitcase.
Or you can ship it with snail mail.
And yet holding "questionable contents".
My basic idea still remains: those controls are a useless waste of time and money.

One word...

[physman_wiu]

SuperDisk
I doubt they have the equipment just laying around to pull the data off of those suckers.

Common Sense

[rock56501]

While I don't agree with them searching people's laptops, people should be taking precautionary measures anyways like have Truecrypt partitions. Atleast then if your laptop gets stolen or lost (not like we have never heard of that before), your information might be protected.

Or to give the customs personnel a hard time, have your computer boot into your favorite Linux OS!

Schneier says...

[Lurker2288]

Bruce Schneier's recommendation for this situation is that your company have a secure VPN in place so that once you're across the border you can connect to the office and download any sensitive material you need. Before you return, VPN in again and upload your work back to the office so that the laptop is clean as a whistle when it goes through customs.

Re:Schneier says...

[MichaelSmith]

Bruce Schneier's recommendation for this situation is that your company have a secure VPN in place so that once you're across the border you can connect to the office and download any sensitive material you need. Before you return, VPN in again and upload your work back to the office so that the laptop is clean as a whistle when it goes through customs. But how do you stop customs cloning the VPN key at the border?

Re:Schneier says...

[Anonymous Coward]

But how do you stop customs cloning the VPN key at the border? Same way you keep them from cloning all your other cryptographic keys, encrypt them with a passprase... it's not exactly a new technique.

Re:Schneier says...

[slashname3]

Use Secure ID tokens. Of course the boarder guards might find it alarming that you have something that counts down repeatedly.

Re:Schneier says...

[perlith]

A good VPN solution should include the minimum of two-factor authentication schema, one being an ever-changing hardware-based component (RSA SecureID as one example), and the other a software-based component (LDAP passwords are pretty common). Anyways, if you keep sensitive/confidential company information on your company laptop, and it gets confiscated, give your company's legal counsel a call. Let them figure it out.

Re:Schneier says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple now has sanitized laptops for execs to take to other countries. They then VPN back. They are more concerned with seizure at foreign airports.

Re:Schneier says...

[spam38]

And this is exactly why these searches are next to useless. Anyone with half a brain wouldn't smuggle data in a physical form, but electronically via the internet.

Re:Schneier says...

[Anonymous Coward]

duh...

Re:Schneier says...

[ohcrapitssteve]

Because their jurisdiction ends at what you carry. They'd have no right to connect to my company VPN and authenticate as me. The data would be on my company's servers, not on my laptop, and if they tried, I'd call back to network security at my company and have them suspend my ability to authenticate.

In fact, if you're worried about such a thing, this might not be a bad idea... tell IT to have your account re-activate the time your plane is supposed to touch down abroad, and deactivate again for when your flight leaves for home until you're back in the office.

Re:Schneier says...

[inject_hotmail.com]

Clean as a whistle?

Not really. Just because you delete something, doesn't mean that's it's gone. Files are "deleted" by nullifying the first letter of their filename (well, at least in FAT systems they are...NTFS might be a bit different, but it's essentially the same). I'm sure they image the whole drive when they go on their swiping sprees...that'll pick up any data that has been deleted, but not overwritten yet...

Company secrets, your temp and temporary internet files directories and all.

You can run a "secure" wiping program on your free space, which should do the trick...but how many people know this? It could be the best $40 piece of software ever purchased.

Re:Schneier says...

[Anonymous Coward]

on a mac secure delete is one of the options as standard

Re:Schneier says...

[wkk2]

To save bandwidth, an encrypted cache where the VPN is required to access the local cache might be better. Maybe TrueCrypt could keep the encrypted volume header stuff in a remote store via the VPN. The VPN could be then turned off for a period of time while traveling. The VPN should probably also require a token for access.

Re:Schneier says...

[Lurker2288]

Good security should be proportionate to the anticipated threat level and the value of the defended material. I'm guessing your typical border agent probably isn't going to bother to image every laptop that passes through the checkpoints, so if I'm just carrying some low value memos or personal correspondence, I don't need that much security. On the other hand, if you're transporting stolen nuclear launch codes, or the formula for Coke, then "probably" isn't an acceptable level of certainty, and more drastic measures may be called for.

In Soviet Russia...

[Lurker2288]

Is not problem, comrade! If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!

Border agents != TSA

[Lurker2288]

As posted ad nauseum above, the guys inspecting your stuff when you cross the border are not the same guys who make you take off your shoes to get on a plane.

Or just dual-boot.

[Rob T Firefly]

Boot into a dummy partition containing Windows 95 or some damn thing, leave a few scattered icons of "business.xls" or "memo.doc" around, and let them search the hell out of it. Meanwhile your real stuff is safely tucked away on the rest of the drive.

"That's right officer, there is only a 100 meg hard drive in this brand-new Thinkpad. Want to play Microsoft Hearts with me, or perhaps sign up for a free trial of Prodigy?"

Re:Or just dual-boot.

[xgr3gx]

Yeah - or install Linux and set it's boot default boot level to 3 (no graphics)
What will they get do when they get to black shell prompt? - Not much
On the other hand, they might think the computer is some kind of bomb and call the FBI.
Hmmm - ok maybe not, that would be a bad backfire.

Re:Or just dual-boot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a great setup concerning that.

I have a small Windows XP partition, 5 gigs or so, with the OS and some innocuous data. Some word docs, a few free applications, enough to look like I actually use the computer.

The bootloader is set up to go straight to that partition. It won't pop up GRUB unless I have my USB key plugged in and I specifically boot off of it. The real data is on a Linux partition that won't get searched because it's encrypted. The kernel on the USB key decrypts it and boots it when the password is entered.

Very few searches are so thorough to say "A-ha! You have grub files on your USB drive - Boot your hidden partition! .. Now Decrypt it, and login! .. Now let us search it, because we DO have linux-based software that we can run from removable drives!"

Re:Or just dual-boot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even cops these days (much less customs officers) have started asking people to "and show me some recent files"

So sad that I actually have a touch script called from rc.local ready to handle that...

Not that windows *has* an rc.local, but I can boot into blackbox and honestly say it's an underpowered, slow system that windows doesn't run well on ...

Career dampner

[joaommp]

This is one of the reasons for me to be unwilling to accept any offer to move to the Redmond division. Out of my fundamentalist principle that my data is mine. Nobody has nothing to do with it, especially not without a warrant.
Besides, there have been stories of officials that just want to confiscate the laptops and magically their kids get new laptops for Christmas.
I usually carry around something like $7000 from home to work in equipment. I wouldn't take it near a US border unless the "chair-man" provided me safe passage for that.

Unreasonable searches and seizures

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday, in Lewiston, NY, the US customs and border agency decided to pull a stunt where they block off traffic _leaving_ the US down to one lane and individually interrogate people as they left the country -- before they even made it across the bridge to go have a chat with the Canadian customs. Fortunately, I didn't have my laptop with me, but I think this datapoint does show that these border guards are flush with powers that their think they have that they shouldn't. I'd invest in a lifetime supply of microsd cards, condoms, truecrypt, and lube if I were you guys.

Privacy and Cultural Issues

[MBHkewl]

For Arabs, and Muslims, it's a very big problem, since strangers are allowed to look at private pictures of family members.

This is both a cultural and a religious difference, which this law doesn't address nor respect.

It's against our customs and culture to post our women's pictures online for the public to see, let alone having the customs look at them and take a copy of them as well!!

And what is considered childpr0n, maybe as well be nude pictures of man's 16 year old wife. That's the legal age to get married in some of the countries in the Middle East.

Apart from pictures, business men carry sensitive information, that shouldn't be copied, and if encrypted, they're forced to provide the key/password to decrypt them.
When there's a leak of information, is the US customs going to be responsible for such cases?

Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues

[Metorical]

You make good points until you get to this...

And what is considered childpr0n, maybe as well be nude pictures of man's 16 year old wife. That's the legal age to get married in some of the countries in the Middle East. When you're in someone elses country you generally follow their rules. If some country existed where you could take pictures of 3 year old naked children would you expect someone from that country to be able to keep these pictures in America?

Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

We can give you a good run for your money with illogical laws - the legal age for marriage in the UK is 16. But if you have a pornographic picture of your spouse, it's child porn. Likewise if you film yourself having sex. If you then watch the video with your spouse you're corrupting a minor. But the having sex bit was just fine.

Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues

[slashbart]

It's quite common here (the Netherlands) for very young children to run around naked near a swimming pool or on a beach or something like that (I haven't been to a pool recently, but it used to be). I have seen enough family pictures with some naked 3 year old on them.

So I guess by American standards that makes me a pedophile?

Strange.

Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues

[Metorical]

So by changing the context of the argument you can make an unrelated point and then accuse yourself of being a pedophile?

Strange.

Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues

[MBHkewl]

First of all, my point was that pictures should not be LOOKED AT in the first place.

Why not use an pattern-recognition over images, to search for pictures of possible "harm" like pictures of guns, knives, AKs, ...etc.

A picture of a nude 9 year old is not justifiable, but one of a 16 year old from a country where laws allow marriages of that age, is.

Whether USA allows it or not, not all people are aware of these restrictions!

The same aforementioned pattern program can FLAG nude images, but not save them or take copies in anyway.
Then maybe the customs can have a service-like (daemon) program installed with the data of the flagged files loaded into it (and only that). If the owner of the laptop sends, zips, emails, ..etc. these pictures, the customs are notified, and then they could open these pictures for further investigation.

(Deleting the pictures should NOT trigger a notice!)

There could be many solutions, but invading people's privacy, culture and customs should not be allowed.

Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Arabs and Muslims should adapt to the modern world instead of expecting constant accommodations outside their homeland.

Wanted: pictures of border agents...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and federal judges in compromising or embarrassing situations.

I'll fill my laptop drive with those.

I'd be happy to have them find those.

4th ammendment

[methuselah]

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.

it pretty much covers this so, i guess that liberalisms creative reading and interpretations of the constitution has pretty much trashed the whole thing now.

First the came for the gypsies

but I was not a gypsy....

Re:4th ammendment

[JasterBobaMereel]

If you cross an international border then you just gave up those rights ... US citizen or not

"...but we couldn't catch the drug smugglers because they were US citizens and so we couldn't search their luggage..."

Re:4th ammendment

[methuselah]

not if you are an american citizen entering your country you don't

there we go with more of that creative interpretation again....

Could anyone have...

[mhelander]

Shouldn't they ask me something like this in checkin, then: "Is all the information on your laptop yours? Could anyone have tampered with the information on your laptop?" Anyone who has had their laptop online would have to admit that someone very well could have tampered with the information on the laptop. Should that mean they shouldn't fly then? (Which, while a personally untested theory, is what I assumes to be the case should I answer that "Yes, someone could have tampered with the contents of my checkin luggage".) People with laptops clearly shouldn't be let into the country: You never know what they might have on them spooky things, and, as it turns out, neither do they!

Re:Could anyone have...

[petes_PoV]

There are two seperate issues here. The question about packing everything yourself is to stop another person sneaking a bomb into your belongings. The point about searching your laptop is to stop illegal data (whether it's just smut, sensitive information or propaganda) from entering/leaving a country.

In the latter case, it doesn't matter whether the material belongs to you. You were found in posession and therefore you cop the punishment. In the same way that if someone surreptitiosly drops a shop's property into your pocket/bag, you get busted for shop-lifting.

*sigh*

[JimboFBX]

If I had something illegal on my computer, wouldn't plain site be the last place I'd put it? This only catches the dumb criminals and is a problem for everyone else. My laptop takes 10 minutes to boot up now (its old), are they going to back-up the line waiting for it to boot up, then hit search for .jpg and start looking for at best naked pictures of my girlfriend that I forgot to remove years ago?

I mean, if I had some illegal pictures or something, I'd probably just make a .zip file, rename the file extension, then copy it to a digital camera's memory stick and have it on the camera. What's that file? I don't know, must be something the camera needs (not that it would ever get to that point).

Mobile devices? PDAs and cell phones?

[GameboyRMH]

So my PDA's not safe either then? If I pack it in stow-away luggage, will that keep it from being searched? Although that raises theft problems, quite common at my local airport...I'd install a fixed lockable compartment inside the suitcase, but that could get me in a private room and on the watch list quicker than saying "No, I will not give you my password."

I'll miss having my music and movies with me on the plane, but should I ever need to travel to the US again (hopefully not) I WILL NOT have any of my computers broken into. I'd far rather be given a 3DNudieScan than that...hey, could this be an "I want a Pony" tactic? I better not give them any ideas.

The next time I cross the border

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm doing so with a USB stick dangling in plain view from the rearview mirror.

On it, will be about a dozen interestingly-named folders, all empty:

Surveillance photos
\-Pentagon
\-Pearl Harbor
Cuban import records
Proposed presidential parade routes 2008-2009
Dirty bomb schematics
\-Modified subway version
Kiddie porn archive
Sex.And.The.City.2008.NTSC.DVDSCR[Axxo]

Re:The next time I cross the border

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex.And.The.City.2008.NTSC.DVDSCR[Axxo]

Good Lord, are they arresting people for bad taste now? Well it's about time!

just burn DVDs and put them in your luggage

[petes_PoV]

This only seems to be an issue with laptops that you carry through a customs/immigration check. If a person had confidential or "discrete" data they didn't want to have investigated, what's to stop them placing it on a CD/DVD and stashing it in their checked bags?

It seems to me that a small (tiny) amount of foresight will simply stop this being a problem. In the same way that terrorists don't carry the C4 in their pockets, people who don't want their data scanned can easily carry it elsewhere or just send it via email.

I forsee a future where laptops only contain the installed software. All the users' personal data will either be online or on extremely small media that will be so hard for a minimum-wage security guard to find, that they'll effectively be invisible.

Re:just burn DVDs and put them in your luggage

[hyades1]

Some of the people I know are already there. The laptop goes over the border in exactly the fashion you describe: nothing on it but a nice, freshly-installed OS. Files are downloaded afterward, worked on, and eventually sent back to the office. The data drive is wiped when we're ready to go home. If a client is sufficiently worried, we're even prepared to use a new data drive each time and leave it behind or destroy it.

I'm talking about completely legal, ethical work, but it's work that requires ironclad assurances of confidentiality. The worst the border guards can do is rip off a laptop and wreck the OS, because there's nothing else to find.

Screw 'em if they can't take a joke.

1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[mlwmohawk]

1st: I have the right to write/say anything I want short of incitement to riot and cause harm. i.e. yell fire in a crowded movie house.

4th: I have the right to be secure in my papers and personal affects and against search and seizure.

5th: If I encrypt my drive, I have the legal right NOT to tell you my password as, if you find what you are looking for, it may incriminate me.

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[JasterBobaMereel]

1st does not apply at customs - you can say something to raise the suspicions of customs officials and they do have the right to stop and search you and your belongings

4th does not apply at customs - your papers and personal effects can be searched for anything that illegal to bring into the country, and can be seized for further investigation or if found to be or contain anything illegal

5th does not apply at customs - encrypting data should raise the suspicions of customs officials and cause them to ask for the password, in the same way that if you lock you baggage they will ask you to unlock it or force the lock ...

By travelling abroad you tacitly agree to abide by customs regulations which include the right of customs officials to search you and your property

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[mlwmohawk]

1st: still applies at customs. What you say will be interpreted carefully and it may increase suspicion, but you still have the right to say what you want.

4th: At entry into the country your personal effects can not be seized unless there is legal cause.

5th: It has already been ruled by the supreme court that the 5th amendment applies to password to encrypted data.

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[JasterBobaMereel]

You have the right to say what you want and they have the right to be suspicious....

Your personal effects can be searched and they can be seized if they have reason to charge you with a criminal offence ...

"It has already been ruled by the supreme court that the 5th amendment applies to password to encrypted data" - but does this apply to customs searches?

"I have encrypted drug running plans on my laptop"
can we have the password
"No"
In that case we arrest you and seize the laptop

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[mlwmohawk]

"I have encrypted drug running plans on my laptop"

That confession actually says you abandoned your 5th amendment rights.

Guard: "Let me have the password to your encrypted disk so that I may search for evidence of crime"

You: "No, I have the 5th amendment right to avoid self incrimination."

The 5th amendment neither confirms nor denies any criminal behavior and the police can not use the exercise of your 5th amendment right as evidence of anything suspicious.

The 5th amendment is not about protecting "guilty" people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from being tricked or forced into admitting or providing evidence for some sort of incriminating situation.

Remember: Cardinal Richlelieu
"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[jwiegley]

The 4th applies but you waive this right when you agree to enter past the signs that say "All persons entering are subject to search." For the exact same (yet verbal) reason that a police officer can ask you "May I look in your trunk." If you say yes and he finds something you're screwed. The search was legal and anything found is admissible for ANY trial even if he didn't have reasonable cause or a warrant simply because you permitted him to search. You can refuse, either the cop or at the border. At the border they don't have to let you in.

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to the two people who posted threads in which they misspelled amendment - it's spelled amendment, not ammendment,

Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment

[JasterBobaMereel]

So they cannot use the fact that you have encrypted files or that you wont reveal the key as evidence or as an excuse to do further searches/seizure but if they already have suspicions for other reasons then the 5th will not protect you ....

New busines model

[owlnation]

Hey Entrepreneurs...

1. Buy lots of laptops, and some insurance.
2. Set up some servers offering secure online file storage.
3. Market your new short-term laptop hire company.

There's obviously a market for this. Getting on a plane has to be one of the worst experiences of modern life. In what way have the "terrorists" not already won?

Re:New busines model

[Anonymous Coward]

In the sense that, at least the second time around, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the election, and the Supreme Court had to get involved.

Re:One word... .. another word

[petes_PoV]

dalayed

And how long do you think they'll detain you while they try?

This pisses me off...

[RogueWarrior65]

Given the recent US Supreme Court ruling. Non-US Citizens are granted all the rights afforded by the American judicial system but genuine US citizens aren't. WTF happened to not sh*tting on your own team? Jeez!

Do they check cellphones as well?

[Taibhsear]

A good chunk of cell phones now can hold at least 2GB on a memory stick. Zip up your nasties and toss it on there. Otherwise just put your company files on encrypted dvdr's. If it has top secret company files just say you are delivering them to where you are going and have no personal access to the data. Would this work?

Re:Do they check cellphones as well?

[Ihlosi]

A good chunk of cell phones now can hold at least 2GB on a memory stick.

Yes, they do check cell phones. What could be more interesting than the people you're in contact with ? They also check cameras, camcorders, Mp3 players, etc.

Re:Do they check cellphones as well?

[Taibhsear]

Do they check it for data though? Or just fiddle with the onscreen menus? If I put a file on my phone that isn't an image, mp3, or video file it doesn't list it. You can only see it if you use a computer to access the file structure. Same with my camera with non-image files.

Lots of luck

[smchris]

Wouldn't it be more productive to lobby congress to change the culture of border customs than to challenge Custom's right to go where their instincts lead them? Obviously, there will always be instances where searching a laptop will be reasonable.

If Billy Gates goes over the border?

[multi-flavor-geek]

Does he have to give up all the source code for what ever OS is on his laptop? What if your laptop contains emails made between you and your attorney under attorney client privilege, what if your laptop contains proprietary or confidential data that is being protected as a work in progress, ie scripts, drafts, other things that are protected from prying eyes for a reason. I have nothing of any interest to anyone on my laptop other than a few 1960's chemistry books in pdf which I just find funny, and maybe a few cracked video games, possibly some downloaded music. But what I have on my computer is what I have on my computer. Thankfully I still don't think they are smart enough to look through the flash memory in your camera to see that you have 500 meg of documents backed up on your flash card.

Except....

[raehl]

This is the border we're talking about here.

Privacy is not a right the limited to the technical elite.

Actually, privacy at the border is limited to diplomats. Everybody else doesn't have any.

The proverbial 'grandma' should be able to expect crossing the border to "just work"

It does 'just work'. Don't cross the border with things you don't want customs agents to find. That goes for drugs, things you are trying to smuggle in without paying duty on, more than $10,000, kiddie porn, documents about another country's nuclear program, trade secrets, or any of those things on a laptop.

Putting it on a hard drive shouldn't make it any less searchable than if you were carrying it on paper.

Re:Except....

[plague3106]

Actually, privacy at the border is limited to diplomats. Everybody else doesn't have any.

Funny, I didn't see anywhere in the Constitution that said I forfiet my rights when I leave or enter my own country.

Re:Except....

[cryptodan]

Well when you are in another nation US Laws do not apply to you. You are under the law of that nation.

Re:Except....

[no1home]

To complete that thought...

And you are not back in the U.S. until you clear Customs/Border Control, even if your plane landed in Nebraska.

Re:Except....

[mrchaotica]

Actually, privacy at the border is limited to diplomats. Everybody else doesn't have any.

QUOTE the part of the Constitution where it says the Fourth Amendment ends at the border, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Re:Except....

[element-o.p.]

Actually, privacy at the border is limited to diplomats. Everybody else doesn't have any. Huh. I don't remember reading that in the Constitution. Guess I just missed it, then.

 

Don't cross the border with things you don't want customs agents to find. That goes for...trade secrets...on a laptop. So if you are a businessperson, traveling for business purposes, you shouldn't be able to take information across the border that will clench the deal? Or maybe, once you arrive at your destination, you should hook up to your hotel's ultra-secure public internet connection and download the gigs of data at the cheapest fricking broadband speed the hotel could buy from the local ISP -- which, incidentally, is shared among all 200 guests in the hotel. And God forbid that the hotel's internet connection should be down when you arrive. I'm sure your business rival would be more than happy to give you a second chance to make your sales pitch to the prospective client before they make their sales pitch. </sarc>

Nack. The Bill of Rights gives us freedom from search and seizure without due process of law. If agents of the government have no reason to suspect I have committed a crime -- and by definition, crossing the border in compliance with the laws of the countries involved cannot possibly be interpreted as "committing a crime" -- then by a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, they have no probable cause to search my laptop at the border. All of this bunk about how the Constitution doesn't apply at the border is just that -- bunk.

Re:Except....

[jwiegley]

Huh. I don't remember reading that in the Constitution. Guess I just missed it, then.

The constitution is not comprehensive law. It defines the structure of US government and defines certain limits of power on the structure's components. The bill of rights are amendments to the original constitution designed to prohibit laws from being made that would remove certain inalienable rights.

The constitution doesn't specifically mention that murder is against the law yet it is because laws in the states were passed saying it is and there is no higher authority saying you can't make such a law. Sorry, "I didn't read that in the constitution" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You are probably raising the issue with the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable search or seizure. Which, unlike murder laws, appears at first glance to be something the constitution does prohibit making a law for allowance. However, this doesn't hold at the border for two simple reasons.

First it prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The constitution is words, the meaning of which is interpreted by the judicial branch; judges. All that has to happen is that a judge has to describe border searches as reasonable, and not be overturned by a higher court. Once this is done, the enforcement officers of the judicial branch may search and seize anything they want at the border without a warrant. I do not know if this interpretation has been officially made. But it doesn't matter because...

Second, for the privilege of entering our country you willing submit to a search and seizure of your property. This is why there are signs that say "all persons and belongings entering are subject to search." This eliminates the need for a warrant in any case just as saying "yes" to a cop who asks "May I look in your trunk." You have given permission either verbally or through your continued action. You can say no in either case. At the border they don't have to let you in. Heck you give this permission every time you enter an airport secure area now, When you enter federal and state buildings and even when you shop at some stores.

So if you are a businessperson, traveling for business purposes, you shouldn't be able to take information across the border that will clench the deal? Or maybe, once you arrive at your destination, you should hook up to your hotel's ultra-secure public internet connection and download the gigs of data at the cheapest fricking broadband speed the hotel could buy from the local ISP -- which, incidentally, is shared among all 200 guests in the hotel. And God forbid that the hotel's internet connection should be down when you arrive. I'm sure your business rival would be more than happy to give you a second chance to make your sales pitch to the prospective client before they make their sales pitch. </sarc>

He never said you shouldn't be allowed. What he said is that if you choose to do so then you are going to have to live with certain consequences of your actions. You either suffer bandwidth limitations, inconvenience or a decrease in your security. You can still bring that information with you.

Nack. The Bill of Rights gives us freedom from search and seizure without due process of law.

Horse hockey. why don't you go read it. There is no "due process of law" clause in the fourth amendment. You are mixing it up with the fifth amendment which describes legal proceedings not acquisition of evidence used in such. As long as they give our laptop owner a speedy and proper trial if they arrest him based on the pictures found then everything is legal.

If agents of the government have no reason to suspect I have committed a crime -- and by definition, crossing the border in compliance with the laws of the countries involved cannot possibly be interpreted as "committing a crime" -- then by a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, they have no probable cause to

Re:Except....

[Damvan]

As a person who once made the mistake of trying to drive a Volkswagen Bus from Canada to the US, as a US citizen, no, the Constitution does not apply at the border.

My vehicle, without any just cause, no drug dog etc, was completely taken apart and destroyed by Customs officials, and I had no recourse. This was in 1989. They cut up and removed the seats, dash, headliner, carpet. They drilled a hole in the gas tank and drained it. They removed all 4 wheels and the tires from the wheels. They took all my luggage and dumped it out on the ground. Then, when they didn't find anything, told me I had 30 minutes to remove everything from their parking lot or it would be confiscated and destroyed. 30 minutes to remove a vehicle with no gas and a hole in the gas tank, no seats and no wheels. I basically packed up my suitcases and bags, grabbing as much as I could carry, and left the vehicle behind. Walked across the border, hitched a ride into town, and took the Greyhound home. Never did find out what they did with my Bus.

While they were tearing apart my vehicle, any protest I made was greated with the usual "You are interferring with Customs Officials, if you continue, you will be arrested."

Re:Except....

[raehl]

I will, right after you quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits searches.

The fourth amendment does not prohibit searches. It prohibits UNREASONABLE searches. While you may not personally feel searches at the border are 'reasonable', there is 200+ years of history and standard practice that solidly considers searches of persons entering the country to be reasonable.

If we've already accepted that searches of persons and papers at the border are reasonable, then searches of laptops are reasonable.

But, I don't suppose I should expect an actual understanding of the constitution from someone with such a ... nuanced ... argumentative style.

Re:Except....

[mrchaotica]

It prohibits UNREASONABLE searches....

...And then defines "unreasonable" immediately afterwards. Unreasonable means without probable cause. Nothing less! And merely traveling is not probable cause!

Re:Except....

[Wrath0fb0b]

Nack. The Bill of Rights gives us freedom from search and seizure without due process of law. I'm sorry but that's just not correct sir. The 4A gives you freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. That qualifier is quite important because border searches have long been considered reasonable since they are the fundamental expression of territorial sovereignty. Perhaps a new law (or even a new Constitutional amendment) needs to be passed to clarify the 'reasonableness' requirements from search and seizure, but its quite clear that the Bill of Rights did not contemplate requiring every search to be incident to a warrant.

Re:Except....

[Atario]

I don't suppose it occurs to these mini-Gestapo that this is exactly the kind of thing that causes people to snap, then buy and train in the use of sniper rifles.

Re:Except....

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have continued verbally protesting, gotten yourself arrested, and then got a good lawyer and sued those cocksuckers.

laptops routinely contain "privileged information"

[Radium_]

(...)
> laptops routinely contain vast amounts of the most
> personal information about people's lives â" not to
> mention privileged legal communications,
> reporters' notes from confidential sources, trade
> secrets, and other privileged information

and porn

Effective For Of Law Enforcement?

[Catchyusername]

It would seem that almost anybody wanting to get away with a real crime could store the data on any number of free or private websites, upload it from abroad, and then just download from an open wifi once back in the states. This seems like a great way to catch the untechnically inclined or stupid criminals within our population but thats about it. I don't see the fucking we're getting being worth the fucking we're getting...

People need to resist

[moxley]

At least the EFF is taking this on.

How can people not see what is really happening in the US? Most of these people in charge of homeland security and who are constantly pumping fear into the populace - they do not care about the people at all - most of them would WELCOME another attack as their power would increase (obviously I am not talking about the people at the lower or mid levels of such organizations, I am sure most of them have their hearts in the right places)...basically the people are being manipulated to feel like they only way they will be "safe" is if the country turns into a gigantic jail.

Even if you think this sort of crap has any value you have to know (if you have any technical expertise at all) that any terrorst or criminal would use encryption or some other method to conceal their sensitive data.....So really the only people this affects is the general populace.

America is becoming a textbook fascist state, I don't say that as an exaggeration or for shock value - it is a fact - we meet all 14 points of fascism that Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist identified after studying the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). I am sure that these 14 points have been posted here before so I won't repeat it - if you are interested you can google "14 points of fascism" or go to a site like:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Almost a year ago I had a chance conversation with a couple who lived in Germany during the thirties through the forties - the are terrified and cannot believe what is happening here - they came to America in the 50s convinced that what happened in Germany could never happen here, and both of them say they see the exact same incremental processes happening here.

I wish I had recorded what they told me, but it was a spur of the moment sort of thing. I came across the paragraphs below on a website today and it reminded me very much of what they had to say (although coming from them it was so much more powerful and straightfoward):

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves,

Re:People need to resist

[roman_mir]

I spent last week in Bahamas, Nassau, (very few Canadians at this time, probably 80% tourists from US, some Germans, some British.) I was talking with a local guy (hotel security guard, Orett) about different places I've gone to. I mentioned the Dominican, Florida and Cuba. For some reason there was a mention that the USians can't go to Cuba and I said only half jokingly that the reason this is, is because the US citizens live in one huge jail. An old guy and his wife who were behind us all of a sudden jumped into the conversation. He said quite loudly, "I am a US customs officer and everyone from the entire world wants to come to our 'jail'." He was visibly upset. "The entire world comes to study in schools in our jail". I told him I was somewhat joking, but it has some truths in it, this should be especially visible to a customs officer (unless the irony gets totally lost on this one.) I mentioned that Cuba would be swamped with the americans if any significant oil was found there. After all the US is trading with China, who are definitely more 'evil' then Cuba. Besides, saying that the 'entire world' wants to enter the US is ridiculous, no less ridiculous than saying that the US teaches the entire world.

My point is that some people see it but probably most people don't see that US is becoming exactly like one huge jail (putting aside the obvious fact that it has 3 million people, or 1% of its population in jail, more than any other country percent-wise.)

I wish these lawyers were argueing common sense

[tommyatomic]

I hope this gets modded up enough that people read it. An important point occured to me while read some earlier replies. The border issue is one of import control. The data on a laptop should be exempt. There is nothing there that the border has a right to search. Here is the simple and strangely not obvious reason why. The internet. There is no data on a laptop that they could possibily prevent from entering or leaving the country even if they searched each and every laptop or ipod and cell phone. Anything on your laptop could be sent through the internet. The only thing that giving them access to your data does is allow unwarrented and unreasonable access to your private life or the trade secrets of your company or business that the government cant legally get any other way. If they cant stop the data from entering or leaving the country anyways then there is no point where they actually have import control. If you are crossing with illegal drugs that is an import control issue. Drugs can physically stopped at the border if found. Data cannot be import controlled so they cant stop it or control the flow of it. Data lacks a neccisary physical component required for the flow of it to be controlled at the border. And it definetely lacks the physical component that makes a search of your bag acceptable. Bottom line. They want into your life. They want access to your medical info, your family info, your private life, your financial info, your company data. There is a huge untapped data market that the domestic spying programs would give their left eyes to get their hands on. And they know they dont have the right to the info which makes them want it more. Its also likely that there is a border agent out there that has a person collection of comondeered private photos copied off unsuspecting travelers. How do you feel about border agents copying perfectly legal private naked pictures of your girlfriend or wife? What checks and ballances are available to make certain there is no abuse of the system?

There's a big difference...

[FellowConspirator]

A gas tank is reasonably expected to contain gasoline. A suitcase is reasonably expected to contain clothing and personal effects. A laptop, on the other hand, may reasonably contain data -- many classes of which are protected by laws that explicitly restrict who has access to it. Some examples of information on a laptop that the law requires the owner to not permit access to: patient-doctor information, lawyer-client information, parishioner-clergy information, classified/secret/top secret information, trade secrets, personal health information, or diplomatic communications. Also, copying information from the laptop may violate copyright (it almost certainly does). While a TSA official might otherwise access your belongings, if they ever became party to those types of information stored on your laptop, they'd be open to a lawsuit. There's no exception to any of those laws for border checks or any access outside of a specific court order.

My Russian friends say U.S. more like Soviets

[bodhisattva]

I work for a Russian company and mostly Russian and Ukranian native co-workers. They say that the U.S. becomes more like the Soviet Union every day.

Re:My Russian friends say U.S. more like Soviets

[jwiegley]

"In United States, Soviet Union becomes more like United States everyday."

Umm... wait... that either didn't come out like I wanted it to or exactly like I wanted it to... I can't tell.

I'm glad you are happy

[JayBat]

...to have customs detain you make you wait for an hour while they wander through your laptop, miss your connecting flight, then seize your laptop and return it to you, someday.

That doesn't make me happy at all, but then I live in the United States, where we (used to) have a constitution that protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. Feh. -Jay-

Let him fry!!

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who is big on security and privacy, and currently lives in Philippines (and was born here). This issues alarmed me at first, that is until I looked at the court documents. If they were of women of legal age, that may be alright (though i do have a problem with people exploiting our economy for sex). But given that they were children, this is not excusable, and he should be tried and convicted, regardless of how the pics where found, he is a awful person, who exploited children in a developing nation.

Re:Let him fry!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...given that they were children, this is not excusable, and he should be tried

Indeed

> and convicted,

You're overstepping your bounds there. If you're presuming that he's guilty, why the fark would you bother with the trial???

We have due process for a reason, you know.

This is why America is failing

[Anonymous Coward]

...as a non-American, I've stopped visiting the United States. Significant international conferences no longer occur on US soil. Canadian teenagers who have never visited the United States have visited Europe several times.

The United States is turning into a provincial backwater. Serious international deals now take place in London, not New York. An estimated 100,000 people in northern border states have lost their jobs.

The United States will be hated even more in 10 years than it is now. And there will be very little sympathy for the US at that time, as an entire generation of non-Americans will have stayed away for fear of being searched or worse, disappeared into Gitmo.

This is already affecting the stature of the US. Within the next five years, a barrel of oil will be priced in euros. Within 20 years, Europe will have to send missionaries to America to re-colonize it after it has gone through some kind of terrible Mad Max collapse.

I used to feel a sympathy for the American people, thinking that there was a distinction between its system and its people. But South Park explained it to me, like so much in America, it is nothing but a cynical ruse. Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and are now morally culpable for every baby they've killed through bombing, every child soldier they hold in a secret CIA prison.

For shame.

here's what's wrong

[SethJohnson]

What's trolling about this....what is factually wrong with my previous post?

Your comment is the typical type of crap my grandmother spews where she selects a few details from news stories, then relates them incorrectly to support her theories that non-whites & immigrants are getting things too good while she suffers.

Yesterday's supreme court decision affirmed that the legal process applied to 'enemy combatant' prisoners of the US should be the same as the process applied to US citizens. They're entitled to be charged with a crime or be released in a timely fashion. They can't just be locked up indefinitely due to suspicion.

If you can't read the articles about the supreme court decision and properly interpret its significance, then you live as another example of our failing educational system.

Seth

Re:here's what's wrong

[cayenne8]

"Your comment is the typical type of crap my grandmother spews where she selects a few details from news stories, then relates them incorrectly to support her theories that non-whites & immigrants are getting things too good while she suffers. "

Funny, I never mentioned race or color in my post.

I have nothing against legal immigrations, we are a country of immigrants. I just want people to come over lawfully, with the intent of becoming full citizens (which mandates a level of proficiency in the English language)...

If anything, I might could get modded off topic...it was just a thought I had when reading the parent post.

You brought up the race issues...

Re:here's what's wrong

[Fjandr]

Pretty sure the "race issue" he brought up was merely an example of using bits and pieces to construct a fundamentally flawed argument, not an attempt to call you a racist.

The most fundamental bases that the Constitution was built on have long been applied to (almost) everyone, citizen or not. The argument that non-citizens should be allowed to be imprisoned indefinitely without recourse is nearly the same as saying that non-citizens should be allowed to be summarily executed without any sort of due process or oversight.

This is not about "citizenship rights," nor immigration. This is about fundamental rights that are supposed to be due every human being regardless of origin. Anything less is an absolutely disgusting, inhuman position to take.

Re:Bad Case.. SACRIFICIAL LAMBS???

[davidsyes]

"While I agree with the privacy infringements, I really wish it wasn't someone suspected on child porn complaining about it. It certainly won't garner much support from the general public, informed or not."

Then, what the public needs is to see some high-profile people having their laptops seized. Well, even Johnny-Q and Jane-Q, too. The thing is, though, maybe they need to be secretly contracted to travel and carry disposable laptops with sensitive, planted information, but with dirty caches that won't forensically add up to evidence of wrong-doing or illegal-porn possession or trafficking. The point is to cause SOOOOO many laptops to be taken that it creates an EXCRUCIATING FUCKING FIRESTORM, either in the courts OR in the streets. /now, begin rant

It's bullshit of the highest magnitude for the so-called ministers of our rights to expect us to believe they're seeking pornographers and terrists. They are simply trying to blunt our expectations of and rights to privacy, supposedly guaranteed until WE (or some journalist) compromises us, or we compromise ourselves to the point that a REAL wiretap or warrant exposes us for dirty-dealing.

But, anyway, some of those laptops need to have on them trackable, planted information that can help punish any agents who decide to profit from dubiously-seized content. The hardware should be trackable, too. That'll put them in the painful position of having to buy and maintain extra "evidence" security, meaning more labor. OR, they'll have to destroy-on-seizure any equipment, again meaning more oversight, more labor. And, with EFF and EFF in play, MAYBE these fuckers will back down somewhat and return to looking for PHYSICAL, not ephemeral or digital, data. Nail people who DEAL in illegitimate trading. NAIL them if you raid their domicile or business. But, transporting a laptop is NOT the same as driving a car full of cocaine or stolen bonds or the like. Any reasonable person can rummage a car and quickly assess most of the content. A reasonable person OUGHT to have receipts or proof of permission to transport high-value goods.

A laptop can harbor illegal information, such as stolen plans or data. But, there are artists and authors, inventors and attorneys who generate or compile information, and suddenly, the average person, and even law enforcement officials not privvy to specific content, will not know what is real or illegitimate content subject to seizure.

Writing fiction that is too close to real could land someone in jail or subject them to
until-end-of-life observation, or subject them to loss of personal property just because some overzealous or self-enterprising but corrupt official or enforcer decides to take control of information or lives not theirs to take or control.

Yep, we need the EFF to create an Egregious Fucking FIRESTORM, and they need our help to thwart the pricks trying to subject us to bullshit invasive inspections when the people they're trying to curtail have already circumvented the system checks.

Problem is, the CBP and various agencies and courts and officials probably are acting like an ordinary business: "Oh, hell. We obtained funding for/spent money on this project that is a major rotten egg. We can't let ourselves look stupid. So, we're going to fight to the end, just to look legit. Keep ranting hard and long enough, and the populace will fold-- if we hint at them that well ruin their lives if they dare to cross our authority or will. // end of rant

definitions, please

[Anonymous Coward]

1. What is a "border"? (CBP implies that it's an "international" border, but the opinion probably allows for a loose interpretation of "border".)

2. When is the file "on" a laptop? Would a USB flash drive in my pocket or otherwise disconnected from a device be subject to search?

Whats the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't possibly hope to prevent people from smuggling in data. It isn't like checking to see that I am not smuggling in vast amounts of drugs or prostitutes or something. I can just as easily e-mail myself sensitive data as carry it with me on my laptop. There is no way they can possibly secure their borders against the former, so why bother with the latter?

Uproar over hard drives being searched, yet

[MLS100]

nobody minds the body cavity search.

Re:Bad Case... Burden and Pain...

[davidsyes]

But, when they routinely rip apart (if they are dismantling or cutting into) the property of those who are deemed "clean and free to go", they should be obligated to pay for restoring the condition of the vehicle prior to letting them go. They should be required to provide food, a lounge, and proof of detainment and protection from being fired. They should obtain for them any lost money incident to the search.

Nations conducting these searches need to tone down. There are ways to deal with drugs and physical contraband by using various X and other types of ray or wave search equipment. While I am sure that not EVERY border agent is a snoop and a thief, it only takes ONE to cause hell for someone who is NOT a trafficker of illegal materials.

Do these people KNOW how many wannabe writers pen their own salacious materials, write incendiary journals/material, and conduct research of various kinds, and -- based on the mores of the agent -- could be summarily relieved of their non-crime-committing property, arrested, and tarred for life, possibly even being fired?

Another responder said FULLY encrypting one's laptop is a GOOD thing, and legitimate, as simply using public transit it is easy to have one's laptop stolen. Why, in 2006, I saw a thuggish asshole running off with the Linux laptop (I assume it was Linux-based, as this was the time of the Linux convention in 2006, at Moscone) of a convention goer who was in the Powell Street BART entrance. I am SURE that victim is hating his life if he had no HARD disc encryption and the asshole thief managed to find an adapter and keep the thing powered longer than 2 hours afterward.

But, had I been quicker-thinking, I'd have stuck out my foot and tripped that *motherfuck* and worried later about the consequences. That way, the victim of the theft would have relief that even if his laptop died and the disk crashed permanently, at LEAST that bastard who stole it wouldn't benefit from the data AND the hardware loss. I'd do this for the user of ANY OS, as long as I realized it was THEIR laptop being stolen from them. Realization only requires seeing the victim using it and then out of the blue seeing some bastard run off with it, with a menacing, victorious look, the look of buying his next drug hit, or the look of glee from tormenting someone who was careless and easy prey...

Pretty much, person privacy and the right to encrypt one's data should protect one from prying eyes of the government.

what assurance does anyone have

[alizard]

that anything "found" in a suspect's hard drive wasn't planted with a faked timestamp?

Imagine being accused of having 50G of downloaded bestiality and kiddie pr0n on a laptop that's never been connected to the Net.

an increasing number of businesses deal with this

[alizard]

by requiring their laptop-carrying employees to carry their computers without data, a base OS install and nothing else. Then, one gets one's data back via secure (encrypted) FTP and reloads it.

PITA? Certainly. But better that than lose the data. However, I suspect that an increasing number of companies are going to simply decide that it just isn't worth the trouble to do business in America. I'm already hearing anecdotal accounts of this.

Re: International Computer Consultants

[Douglas Goodall]

I have done a lot of international computer consulting. It is common when traveling to fix a problem at a customer site to take source code with you in case you need to make a mod on-site. It has been a problem for me for years. What is the value of the data? Are you planning on selling it? When my computers were being shipped back from Japan, the hard drives had been cleared to zeroes by someone assuming I was smuggling something home. I went to Israel and made some operating system mods to get the floppy support working for koor industries, and my modified source code was cleared at the airport as I stepped through a koor scanner with a floppy in my pocket. bloody hell. The crossing of borders with bits will only become more problematic as time goes on.

Border?

[lol_nube_lol]

Just don't try to bring in any fruits or vegetables!!