Senate Hearing On Laptop Seizures At US Border

suitablegirl writes "As we have discussed, Customs and Border Patrol is allowed to seize and download data from laptops or electronic devices of Americans returning from abroad. At a Senate hearing tomorrow, privacy advocates and industry groups will urge the lawmakers to take action to protect the data and privacy of Americans not guilty of anything besides wanting to go home."

Comments

About time.

[PitViper401]

That policy is insane, I don't need them seeing all my files. And I don't just mean the music. I mean files I created, by myself, that I just feel are mine to show to whom I want.

Re:About time.

[TubeSteak]

That policy is insane, Yes

I don't need them seeing all my files. And I don't just mean the music. I mean files I created, by myself, that I just feel are mine to show to whom I want. Not your choice.
If you take it or send it through the border, they can inspect it.
This is not new. It predates The War on [noun/adjective/adverb/other]
End of discussion.

The issue here is not whether they can inspect your documents, but whether they can keep a copy of your electronic files. FTFA:

"Opening my suitcase at the border is not the same as opening my laptop and making a permanent record of everything in it," he said. The difference is that one search is transitory in nature, while copying your hard drive is not.

Electronics do not and should not have any protection above and beyond a paper document.
That said, electronics should also not be treated any differently than a paper document.

Again, the issues are:
A) Should the government make a copy of electronic files crossing the border
B) If they do, how will that data be handled

Re:About time.

[linzeal]

This only punishes people who are not technically savvy enough to encrypt their documents or store them in a USB key drive.

Re:About time.

[PCMeister]

While it's about time, I hope something substantial comes out of this hearing, and not some bullshit ' non-binding resolution '; as in suggesting that the Border Patrol honor the oath they took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". There has to be valid probable cause before having to be subjected to such search and seizures (ie. 4th Amendment anyone!?!)

As a refresher, additional information can be found here.

4th 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."

Fortunately, I haven't been subjected to such seizures, but I've read enough horror stories from frequent travelers to warrant such a response.

Good luck to us all...

Re:About time.

[techno-vampire]

Electronics do not and should not have any protection above and beyond a paper document. That said, electronics should also not be treated any differently than a paper document.

Exactly. If they're not allowed to make copies of any paper documents you have so that they can inspect them later, they shouldn't be allowed to do that to your hard disk either.

Re:About time.

[sndtech]

USB keys are also available in rather easily concealable form factors. such as the 4Gb, smaller than a stick of gum, usb key I have in my hand. which I could easily conceal even if I were naked.

Re:About time.

[speedtux]

A child pornographer could make the same statement.

So? In order for border inspection of files to be an effective means against child pornography, we'd have to outlaw encryption and stop cross-border Internet traffic. And even then, we'd still be left with the fact that border agents simply are not qualified to make determinations about obscenity or pornography, child or otherwise.

Not implying anything,

I am, however, implying something: I think bringing up the "child pornography" argument is moronic. A bunch of ineffective and unproven policies like this are not going to help our children, but they are going to harm our democracy and cost us dearly in terms of tourism and business.

Re:About time.

[EnglishSteve]

MentalImage.Erase()

Re:About time.

[MrNaz]

Just to clarify that conjugation there:
Noun: Terrorist.
Adjective: Terroristish.
Adverb: Terroristically.
Other: Terroristificationism.

Re:About time.

[MrNaz]

Hey, whatever turns you on.

Re:About time.

[bytesex]

The problem is that bringing an encrypted or sealed letter (or business papers) across the border, will probably not raise a flag, even when inspected. Bringing an encrypted laptop across, however, may prompt them to force you to reveal the key. If all that was ever sealed had to be opened at the border, there would be no international business.

Re:About time.

[MrNaz]

"cost us dearly in terms of tourism and business."

To say nothing of freedom and justice.

Re:About time.

[Ihlosi]

... we'd have to outlaw encryption and stop cross-border Internet traffic.

Why ? You may not be able to catch the smart ones, but there's still plenty of dumb ones.
Not all of them are computer-literate (or math-literate, as seen in the guy who used
a Swirl filter to "obfuscate" his face).

If you can catch dumb criminals, why shouldn't you ?

Re:About time.

[countach]

Can someone help a foreigner to understand how the US has circumvented their constitution?

Re:About time.

[Nuskrad]

Oh thanks, you just gave them reason to cavity search all geeks.

Re:About time.

[johndmann]

You couldn't sneak that through a metal detector, though. Hopefully they would overlook it dangling from your keychain, especially if you were smart enough to buy a device that looks nothing like a standard USB key in an attempt to slip by (example).

Re:About time.

[Amy Grace]

Yeah, but creating child pornography is illegal even if one does not encrypt them when they're stored on ones' laptop. Writing policy papers on my city's harm-reduction drug strategy isn't illegal, although it's not something I want to pop up every time I try to enter the US.

I don't like the implication that because bad people like privacy so they don't get caught doing bad things, everyone who likes their privacy is doing bad things. There's a name for that particular fallacy, I think, but I don't remember. It's really quite similar to the argument that law-abiding citizens shouldn't mind the ever-present CCTV surveillance of public areas, since it will only affect criminals.

Re:About time.

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'd give quite a lot to see the guard who tries to search Richard Stallman. The man is famous for not bathing, and you could probably hide an OLPC laptop in that beard.

Re:About time.

[Skuldo]

What about MicroSD? I have a 1GB card, and it is smaller than my little fingernail, it could go taped inside the cover of a book, roof of your mouth, in a packet of sweets, anywhere.

Re:About time.

[speedtux]

If you can catch dumb criminals, why shouldn't you ?

Because it means giving up a lot of liberties and accepting a lot of risk for law-abiding citizens in exchange for essentially no improvement in the safety of children.

In terms of risk, ask yourself: are you really sure that none of the images in your browser cache might be interpreted as child pornography? Remember, you need not even have seen or clicked on the image: browsers can prefetch images for you, and Javascript can load images behind your back. And it doesn't have to be actual child pornography, it merely has to look like it.

I think attitudes like yours are dangerous.

Re:About time.

[hedwards]

I'd be curious to hear what the justification is for searching laptops. It's far, far too easy to get covert information across the borders through the internet to even bother searching random laptops for information.

Really, any search beyond what's necessary to demonstrate that it's not being used to smuggle drugs, bombs etc., is far more than is reasonable or necessary.

Nobody in their right mind is going to send information that sensitive via a carried computer. I supose they might employ stagonometry to hide the files, but you're not going to bust that in the time that border agents have to inspect things.

It really strikes me as another vain attempt to bring the rules of the physical world to the digital world.

OTOH for suspects that's a totally different matter.

Re:About time.

[hedwards]

They can't do that, it would be a violation of the 5th amendment protection from self incrimination.

That probably won't stop them from strip searchin' you and otherwise humiliating you. As well as placing you on the no fly list. But they can't make you reveal the passphrase.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for not bathing there is an other way to object to this policy: Fill your drive with pictures like Goatse.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't TrueCrypt able to encrypt the whole drive even if it already contains data, without destroying that data? Thus not requiring the external space you mention as the obstacle that keeps you from encrypting. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe it's a standard feature in encryption software. Just thought you might find the info useful.

Re:About time.

[mpe]

I don't like the implication that because bad people like privacy so they don't get caught doing bad things, everyone who likes their privacy is doing bad things. There's a name for that particular fallacy, I think, but I don't remember.

It's a variation on the "(most) bad people do X therefore people doing X must be bad." Thing is that X may be a very common activity. It may even be the case that bad people are statistically less likely to do X than the general population.

It's really quite similar to the argument that law-abiding citizens shouldn't mind the ever-present CCTV surveillance of public areas, since it will only affect criminals.

As well as those who claim "If it helps catch criminals then it's worth it", even after it's shown that they arn't actually much use. They are also unlikely to understand that there may be an optimal level of CCTV for catching criminals, adding "more" may even make it less useful.
IMHO it's a great pity it generally dosn't work to have such people drink themselves to death after being told that "alcohol in moderation can be good for you".

Re:About time.

[syousef]

This is not new. It predates The War on [noun/adjective/adverb/other]
End of discussion.

The issue here is not whether they can inspect your documents, but whether they can keep a copy of your electronic files.

I think you misunderstand what "End of discussion." means.

Re:About time.

[lisany]

There is no constitutional protection when not in the United States and at border crossings you're nowhere. They can't force you (unless you suck with torture) but they can do worse and prevent you from entering.

Re:About time.

[Muad'Dave]

Ever read this?

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.

Re:About time.

[aproposofwhat]

stagonometry

Encrypted information hidden in the shape of antlers?

Excellent idea - especially for those damn Scandinavian terrorists bringing their Lapp tops complete with reindeer antlers into the country :o)

Re:About time.

[Choozy]

I am, however, implying something: I think bringing up the "child pornography" argument is moronic. A bunch of ineffective and unproven policies like this are not going to help our children, but they are going to harm our democracy and cost us dearly in terms of tourism and business.

Not to mention the fact that 99% of parents out there have photos of their kids half or totally naked. These people are obviously not paedophiles but your statement makes it seem that they are. Could you really want some border security guy have the ability to copy all your personal photos for later "perusal"?

Re:About time.

[theonetruekeebler]

The border patrol has been known to force-feed powerful laxatives to pregnant women and shackle them to a hospital bed for two days while they watch them shit into a bucket. And that just for the War on Drugs. Now that there's a War on Terror run by a government that's willing to torture, do you really think hiding something up your ass will do a bit of good?

Re:About time.

[geminidomino]

Yeah, well, apparently wanting to come home from your Caribbean cruise constitutes "probable cause" to these scumbags.

Re:About time.

[oldspewey]

Goatse modded insightful? Isn't this one of the seven signs of the coming apocalypse?

Re:About time.

[Scrameustache]

4th Amendment anyone!?! That's pre-911 thinking, obviously you hate america, and you're probably a secret muslim sleeper agent. We'd better shoot you, just to be safe.

Re:About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

This only punishes people who are not technically savvy enough to encrypt their documents or store them in a USB key drive. If they find a file that they believe to be encrypted (let's face it, not that hard to recongnize) they can hold your laptop/storage device untill you agree to give them the password to access it. USB key drives are also laible to be searched.

Really the most ridiculous thing about this is the ability to store all of your illegal data on a portable hard drive and throw it in your checked in luggage when flying. They can't search that, they can only search your carry on items. It's almost as if they are afraid you plan on watching child porn on the plane...

Re:About time.

[Jaysyn]

That is quite possibly one of the most evil things I've ever read.

Re:About time.

[KookyMan]

The argument goes, Prior to passing customs you are not inside the US, and as such the constitution does not apply. Your effectively in "International Waters" until Customs allows you in, and as such they can do anything they want.

Re:About time.

[TubeSteak]

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. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Exceptions to the warrant requirement
Border search exception
 

Here's the Supreme Court case that affirmed the USA's long standing border search practices
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=531

Being a strict Constitutionalist isn't all that useful if you don't know what the Supreme Court has decided over the years or if you don't propose alternative ways to accomplish the results of those decisions.

Re:About time.

[Larry Lightbulb]

He is a terrorist, I am a freedom fighter.

Re:About time.

[mlwmohawk]

May prompt them to force you to reveal the key

They do not have the right to order you give your password. They may instruct you to do so, but you under no obligation to comply. This is an actual ruling from the supreme court of the U.S. siting the 5th amendment.

The 5th amendment is not about protecting guilty people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from providing information that may be used to incriminate themselves. There can be no inferred presumption of guilt by law enforcement by merely invoking your 5th amendment rights.

One of the contemporary inspirations of the 5th amendment was the kind of government in Europe typified by Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" The thinking was that there will always be laws that could be applied to coerce innocent people. The 5th amendment was a protection for basically lawful individuals from being trapped and imprisoned by politically motivated prosecution.

Re:About time.

[Mister Whirly]

Exactly. Or encrypted online storage. Why bring it with you at all when you travel?

Re:About time.

[methuselah]

finally someone gets it

Yes I have heard of it.

it is the 4th amendment to the constitution of the united states of america. Why they are discussing anything that violates this with regard to a united states citizen baffles me to no end. what truly astounds me is that anyone that argues in favor of such a violation actually considers themselves a U.S. Citizen much less intelligent.

Re:About time.

[np_bernstein]

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#posthoc

eg: "The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

Re:About time.

[nightfire-unique]

The border patrol has been known to force-feed powerful laxatives to pregnant women and shackle them to a hospital bed for two days while they watch them shit into a bucket. And that just for the War on Drugs. Now that there's a War on Terror run by a government that's willing to torture, do you really think hiding something up your ass will do a bit of good?

If that story is true, every single principle actor who was involved should be tried, and hanged. Behaving this way under the colour of authority should be punishable by death.

Re:About time.

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's summer. They've migrated south.

Can we be a little more inclusive?

[RenHoek]

All nice and dandy, but please remember that the rest of us filthy foreigners who are coming for a friendly visit aren't directly guilty of anything in particular either. We'd like to keep our private stuff private as well..

So please protect the data and privacy of us non-Americans as well.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to extend even that: it's not only about privacy, but also about business and trade secrets. People on business trips having to give up their laptops is simply unacceptable.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

All nice and dandy, but please remember that the rest of us filthy foreigners who are coming for a friendly visit aren't directly guilty of anything in particular either.

There's a good reason why international tourism in the US is plummeting when a low US dollar means it should be increasing.

Oh well, I guess the US economy is strong enough to withstand $94 Billion in lost spending.... oh wait!

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Frogbert]

I completely trashed any plans I had for ever visiting the US when I heard from my friends that not only were they fingerprinted when they flew into the US, they also had their retinas photographed.

One wasn't even staying in the US, he just had to change planes so he could continue onto Mexico.

Fuck that for a joke.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you figured out you're not welcome yet?

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[bane2571]

You see, that right there is why I don't get how these searches pass any common sense test. I could stop at any one of a hundred internet cafes on one side of the border, Gmail the "illegal" file to myself, delete it off my laptop, cross the border and go to another internet cafe and download it, deleting everything up to and including the Gmail account itself. If I was suspicious of Gmail's data retention policies there are hundreds of other ways to interweb some data.

It's like DRM, Inconveniencing innocent people in a big while doing little to nothing to stop whatever problem is trying to be stopped.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Thank you. I'll up you one on that and actually never 'git in'.

Even my mother, who married in the states in '68 and lived there on numerous occassions, has reached her limit regarding the security checks at the airport.

I'm sorry for all you good guys over there, but this government paranoia is going to cost you big time, I'm not kidding.

Foreigners (read: trade partners, not terrorists) will stay away, choosing to conduct their business with a more open society.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Bartab]

I'd, personally, be against any protections granted to filthy foreigners trying to enter our country. Showers should be required.

Especially for Canadians.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Opportunist]

Nice to see that at least some US citizens match the stereotype. I mean, what's a stereotype if you can't pull someone in front of the curtain and point at him?

I'm actually facing a really big problem due to all the terror craze. I love the US. No, really, I do. Great country. I like a lot of people there, and I miss seeing them.

But with that government? Treating me like some sort of criminal right when I get in, just because I wanted to spend some Euros there instead of here? Somehow, it ruins my holidays when they already start with a hassle and searches that would make my proctologist blush. Well, not really. Yet. Give it a few...

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Opportunist]

If wanting privacy makes you a terrorist, then I'm a terrorist.

Seriously. I like my privacy right that way. Private. I prefer privacy to security. I can rest more easily being called a terrorist than being called a coward. Because that's someone who gives up his privacy, his freedom and his free will for security: A coward.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

don't (in the legal sense) enter the US.

I'm afraid the idea that you're in international territory until you've crossed passport control is a myth. Some countries decide to exclude parts of their airports from passport & border controls so those areas appear to be international territory.

The US doesn't treat their airports like this & couldn't have a case like (for instance) Merhan Karimi Nasseri.

I'm guessing your country has laws similar to France, but guess what? There's a big world out there & laws are not uniform.

If you don't like the US's laws, don't go to the country - simple as that (I don't & don't).

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Opportunist]

Umm... could it be that some dimwit in some agency mistook tourism for terrorism? I mean, they do sound similar...

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[thesupraman]

Wrong, it is not uncommmon and a transfer to be marched off the plane, asked to collect bags, then processed back through 'security checks' along with full documentation checks, records, etc and then held until transfer in a 'secure holding location'.

Of course this is not consistently done, apparently terrorists only use certain airports..

That is why I dont even transfer through the US these days if I can avoid it - their loss, less business for their carriers.

Some would argue that I could have evil terrorist items in my luggage allowing me to take over the plane or something, but hell, I just flew in over the US, so had all the opportunity in the world then...

Does it feel good to treat the rest of the world as though they are criminals?

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[KGIII]

You could also mail the data in snail mail and that is subject to certain rights as well. However, if you personally carry it across then your plain text data (say a date book) can be searched. The issue here isn't searching it, we've (as a government at least) established that we have a right or obligation to do so. The issue here is retaining the data by making a copy of it. I am pretty liberal in my views in that I'd not be at all offended (I'd be annoyed with the time it took if they were going to bother doing it right) to have my laptop searched when crossing. I'll be right friggen pissed off if they want to clone my drives to inspect it later. I'm from the school of, "You got a problem or question for me then you ask me, to my face, and we'll deal with it there." The idea of them taking a copy, stealing if you will - they can't keep my clothing for drug residue testing in a lab just on a whim (I don't think) so I'll be pretty pissy if they try to do so with my data.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[CmdrGravy]

I think the last time I transferred in the US my bags were taken off the plane and I had to pick them up again and wait whilst some completely rude and unpleasant monkey went through them and then check them back in, at which point the airport lost them and I didn't see them again until a week after my outgoing flight landed.

This sort of thing really does make me think twice before either transferring in the US or going there in general. As well as my experience a friend recently transferred in Miami to somewhere in South America and was held up by American customs giving him the unpleasant rude treatment for so long he actually missed his connection.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh? What about monitoring of political opponents? Tax fraud? Cell phone records and email of individuals for whom there just isn't enough evidence for a legitimate warrant? Cute college students that the border guard can plan to be at the same bar or party with? Stock tips from business travelers closing international deals?

The potential for abuse is endless. Please don't limit your completely justified paranoia. Since there's no court order, and no clear judicial jurisdiction for this data, it will most certainly be abused, and abused with little recourse to prove who had it.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[Cantaro]

Nice try. On the occasion of deciding which flight to book from Ireland to Argentina, I called American Airlines and was informed that, in order to fly from one international destination to another on a flight that stops at a US airport, one has to change terminals, as arrival and departure will just about always be on different terminals. That, however, means leaving the international area, going through both Immigration and Customs, be photographed and fingerprinted like a criminal, potentially have the luggage searched, and the wife having to apply for a US visitor visa beforehand because Argentina fell out of the Visa Waiver Program a few years back when Argentina's currency collapsed. All the hassle for a few hours in the US? Sorry, mate. Too many reasons to choose Iberia and fly through Madrid instead of through Chicago with AA.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[mpe]

The issue here is retaining the data by making a copy of it. I am pretty liberal in my views in that I'd not be at all offended (I'd be annoyed with the time it took if they were going to bother doing it right) to have my laptop searched when crossing. I'll be right friggen pissed off if they want to clone my drives to inspect it later. I'm from the school of, "You got a problem or question for me then you ask me, to my face, and we'll deal with it there." The idea of them taking a copy, stealing if you will

Rather copyright infringement. Wonder what would happen if you were to try to set the BSA, RIAA and MPAA onto the TSA.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[L4t3r4lu5]

"Paaaaaass the Dutchie to de left han' side!"

Apologies, but it seemed apt.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[VdG]

With the ammount of data that devices can store there's no way a customs agent could inspect it immediately with any thoroughness.

Confiscating a laptop or other device is obviously really inconvenient for the owner, especially if they don't know when or if it'll be returned.

Copying a disk - or whatever - is possible, but apart from the issues that raises about the security of the data and its eventual disposition, I wonder if whatever customs agents do would meet the requirements to be used as evidence. Normally forensic specialists are very careful about exactly how a disk is copied. Simply copying the files won't do.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[odsock]

Wonder what would happen if you were to try to set the BSA, RIAA and MPAA onto the TSA. No one strikes fear into the hearts of the TSA like the Boy Scouts of America.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[MadMidnightBomber]

On the contrary, the one thing that keeps me coming back is the friendly, smiling faces of Customs and Border Patrol.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[hughk]

Um no. Any international flight transiting the US is subject to search. However I believe that the original poster was referring to where you disembark and change planes whilst staying in the international terminal or if the plane is simply refuelled. In both cases although you are 'international air side', you are still subject to various controls and have been since before 9/11. Health also used to be a concern.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[TomorrowPlusX]

The last time I flew ( note: I'm an American citizen born in the US, and it was a flight inside of the US ) when the plane was about to leave the boarding area for the runway, one of the flight attendants loudly called out "$REAL_NAME, identify yourself!".

(I have an eastern-european muslim first name, shared with a recently deceased chechnyan terorrist, and my last name is shared with one of the 911 guys. Go me. )

So, I politely said, "Here I am, is anything wrong?". She came over, and gave me the stink eye. Asked, "Where are you headed?". "Home, washington DC". She asked to see my ID. I showed her.

She asked if anybody was with me. My girlfriend ( a cute korean lass ) says "Me, we're going home together." The stewardess looks at her, gives us both the stinkeye, and says "Fine", and walks way.

I'm fucking tired of this shit. It's racism, pure and simple. It serves no benefit to anybody. If I were a terrorist, would I for fuck's sake use my real name and id? Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

End rant.

Re:Can we be a little more inclusive?

[catxk]

Talk about downward spiral.

Countermeasure

[sodul]

What about putting goatse.cx as a background picture, including for the login page.
They might return the laptop to you right away ... or just burn it.

Re:Countermeasure

[Concerned Onlooker]

You know, they will be searching you. You don't want to give them any ideas.

Okay, that rules out Sweden and the US

[Fluffeh]

Recently Sweden's recent information tapping laws and this US take on labelling anything that has information as fair game to seize, copy and snoop one make for some creeping "big brother is watching you" wins.

Actually, I wasn't aware that any and all printed matter was able to be seized or copied when crossing borders. The article implies that this has been done to allow the same level of access across all media types, but that means that customs can just jump in and copy my diary when I enter the US? Why do I feel like I skipped a page in this unfolding story?

Americans' rights

[VincenzoRomano]

Are not stronger than other country people's.

Re:Americans' rights

[Anonymous Coward]

They are if you want to enter the country... Welcome to life, you have to obey the laws of the place you're visiting. Americans are still subject to British style libel laws while in England, Germans are subject to Thai drug laws while in Thailand, Danes are subject to Chinese censorship laws while in China, etc.

If you don't agree with the laws of the place you want to visit, don't go... and if you don't think it should be easier for you to get back home than someone who doesn't live there, be sure to leave your house unlocked.

Re:Americans' rights

[trentblase]

Inside the US, American's rights are stronger than those of non-Americans. For example, American's have the right to vote in US elections. This right is pretty much limited to American citizens. I think most people would agree that this policy makes sense. Such arguments apply to other rights as well. Although I do not support the searches in question, it is completely different to deny a foreigner access to the US than to deny a citizen the right to return to their family. If you want rights consummate with mine, I also expect you to assume the requisite duties: paying income tax (including income earned abroad), reporting for jury duty, etc.

Meaningless either way

[EdIII]

First off, I just love this asshole:
 

But travelers should not have an expectation of privacy when crossing the border, said Nathan Sales, a professor of law at George Mason University who also is scheduled to testify. He said that all information and possessions carried by individuals across the border such as documents or photo albums are fair game for search without reasonable suspicion and that the law doesn't provide an expectation of privacy just because information is stored digitally.

"We ought to have a law that is technologically neutral," Sales said. "The amount of privacy shouldn't depend on the format, digital or analog." He noted that the 11 challenges to the legality of the laptop searches were made by convicted child pornographers.

I hate to be vulgar, but what a fucking ass. Individuals have every right to expect that their documents and photo albums are not going to be searched and copied by agents at the border. I wholeheartedly agree with him that privacy should not depend on the format it is stored in. Of course I think we should actually have privacy regardless of whether the item is a physical item in your bag, or 1's and 0's in cyberspace.

What a great argument he makes too, that just because it has been child pornographers that have been caught first, and are pioneering the very first challenges to these laws, that they must be wrong, and therefore the basis of the challenge is wrong too .

Kind of reminds me of the douche bags that love to shutdown any arguments against DRM claiming that any opponents are clearly pirates.
 
 

Swire said he plans to tell the subcommittee how laptop border searches are similar to the failed encryption policies of the 1990s. "The government policy violates good security practices," he said. "It asks for password and encryption keys, which people are trained to never reveal. It violates privacy, chills free speech and compromises business secrets."

The travel association has informally studied the potential economic impact on business travelers. Gurley said lawyers carrying confidential client materials on their laptops or small business owners worried about the integrity of their business plans must make alternate arrangements such as purchasing another computer for travel and adjusting the way they transfer information.

No kidding. I am glad somebody is bringing this up. This policy will just create a strain on the corporate wallet for both corporations in the US and abroad. It is simply unacceptable for corporations to allow sensitive data to be copied or viewed by any unauthorized individuals. That includes all governmental agencies too. That is what search warrants are for.

I can see whole new lines of products designed to sanitize laptop hard drives before arriving at the border checkpoints and encrypted restore CD's that will bring a laptop back up on the corporate network and access to secure file systems.

Oh wait, they already have products that meet US Department of Defense 5220.22-M, and other such standards. Only now corporations will be forced to use for border checkpoints to protect against their own government.

For smaller businesses they will just have to send their laptop hard drives, and possibly their entire laptops through FedEx or UPS, or some other equivalent to bypass these insane policies.

A good lock only keeps out honest people is a saying I have heard for quite a long time. Well this policy will catch nobody a few years from now, since everybody will know that border checkpoints are dangerous.

Anybody else hear the terrorists (and other criminals) laughing hysterically? In fact, if one was so inclined to be a little more paranoid, you might think this is nothing do with catching criminals, but a new way to watch the American public and embarrass ourselves in front of the rest of the world.

For fuck's sake people! Let's stop exporting Democracy and Freedom to the rest of the world and start producing and keeping a little more of it here locally.

Re:Meaningless either way

[Anonymous Coward]

Individuals have every right to expect that their documents and photo albums are not going to be searched and copied by agents at the border.

Those are two different things. Anything that crosses the border can be searched (even though the vast majority isn't). Copied is completely different. If you have briefcase full of papers, Customs isn't allowed to run them through the photocopier, but Customs can look at them.

I can see whole new lines of products designed to sanitize laptop hard drives before arriving at the border checkpoints and encrypted restore CD's that will bring a laptop back up on the corporate network and access to secure file systems.

Ummm, like a VPN? What a great idea! Go patent this immediately!

For smaller businesses they will just have to send their laptop hard drives, and possibly their entire laptops through FedEx or UPS, or some other equivalent to bypass these insane policies.

In case you didn't know, when a package crosses the border via FedEx, UPS, post office or any other method, it can be searched if Customs wants to search it. Sometimes they do, but the vast majority of the time they don't.

A good lock only keeps out honest people is a saying I have heard for quite a long time. Well this policy will catch nobody a few years from now, since everybody will know that border checkpoints are dangerous.

Just about everyone has heard of fingerprints, but lots of criminals are still caught that way.

Anybody else hear the terrorists (and other criminals) laughing hysterically? In fact, if one was so inclined to be a little more paranoid, you might think this is nothing do with catching criminals, but a new way to watch the American public and embarrass ourselves in front of the rest of the world.

Anything that crosses the border is subject to search by Customs (primarily to levy taxes & duties and keep out contraband). It has been that way for centuries.

Many, many other countries do the exact same thing. This isn't new or unusual.

Re:Meaningless either way

[Anonymous Coward]

Last week I was asked by my boss to attend a meeting in New York city, he asked me to hop by IT to have my notebook secured. Long story short, I was given a clean laptop, and an encrypted flashcard with my files. I did not have access to my files and had to call IT for a decryption key when I arrived at the hotel. Upon leaving the States I was instructed to destroy the flashdrive before going to the airport.

What this world is coming too is a riddle to me, but this experience did not make my trip to the States any more comfortable.

On a related note I was not searched and I was able to pass through without any trouble or delays.

Has been legal since the Constitution was signed

[mdmkolbe]

Since the signing of the Constitution, border agents (not TSA) have always had the right to search persons crossing the border. They don't need probable cause or even suspicion. I'm not saying it is right, but this is the law.

Now if you want to change the law with respect to laptops, there are three key points. Ignore these and you won't win.

1. You must establish that border agents should only be searching for actual contraband and not intelligence gathering or filling any other law enforcement role. (This point should be easy compared to the remaining ones, but it still might be hard.)
2. You must establish that contraband couldn't be contained in the information on the laptop. (Hard to establish since it's not true as long as child porn is illegal.) In the alternate, establish that boarder agents shouldn't be responsible for finding information-based contraband. (Still a bit of a tough argument to make.)
3. If you fail on the previous point, you could try to establish that while border agents can search laptops without cause, they shouldn't be allowed to seize the laptops without cause.

This last point seems like it is the most likely to win, but it contains a hidden trap.

• First they establish that seizure should be possible when information based contraband (e.g. child port) has definitely been found.
• Then they draw an analogy between encrypted or password protected drives and the physical situation where someone tries to cross the border (let's say by car to avoid the TSA) with a steal safe. I'm not sure but I'd guess that if the person refuses to open the safe, then the border agents will either refuse entry, arrest the person or seize the safe. (For good reason, otherwise it would be a loophole big enough to drive a truck full of contraband through.)
• Then they bring up the physical analogy to TruCrypt: someone crosses the border with a safe and shows the inside of the safe, but the agents think the safe has a hidden compartment. I'm not sure if currently they can seize in this case. It's probably a gray area (e.g. if the safe model is well known for having a hidden compartment, etc.).

End result? Seizing laptops where nothing is encrypted and there is no contraband might stop, but searching laptops isn't going away any time soon and seizing laptops "with cause" will continue. It's just a question of how broadly we define "cause".

ECHELON/Warrantless Wiretapping

[mosb1000]

All data moving into and out of the US via the internet/other communications infrastructure is subject to searches by the US government. One program is Echelon, and the people who've tired to report on it and call attention to it are generally considered nut-jobs and conspiracy theorists (I'm not sure why, stories on it are always confirmed by credible sources, and the program was never strictly denied by the feds). Now there is "warrantless" wire-tapping, though as far as I can tell the government is not required by law to have a warrant to intercept this information but that is a question of legal interpretation. Perhaps the distinction is that the NSA is now doing it, where ECHELON is a CIA thing. Or maybe it's just that ECHELON has remains secret, while someone spilled the beans on the NSA program.

So no, searching these laptops is not pointless. And also, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Re:ECHELON/Warrantless Wiretapping

[digitalchinky]

Someone else clearly has no idea either :-) Echelon is so 1950's and simply has never existed in the way you claim. Aside from this it is a physical impossibility anyway. Anyone calling attention to this persistent little word is actually somewhat deserving of the phrase you have used. This is simply because they close their eyes to reality in favour of a good old conspiracy theory instead.

Individual 3 letter agencies. That's all you'll find, each of them with different missions and objectives. Martin from DSD some years back offered up the existence of the UKUSA relationship. 5 countries that pass little secret notes amongst themselves. It's not the only association, it's just one of hundreds made by all countries the world over.

To put things in to perspective for you: Absolutely none of these agencies have unlimited resources or humans to throw around. They have a finite number of magic boxes that do their business. Now how many strands of fiber cover the earth, how many satellites exist, how many signals do they relay at any one instant in time. How many terrestrial forms of communication exist, copper, radio, light.

The answer is absolutely vastly more than every single intelligence agency on the earth combined could ever hope to suck down. But even if they could, what is important and what is junk without hindsight or human analysis?

Your average undersea cable isn't just one massive big packet switched transmission you can plug in to wireshark, they have thousands of discreet methods of communication, some encrypted, some multiplexed, some utterly unique.

What stops me setting up my own radio link across a border? I could make it mobile, I could use frequency hopping, spread spectrum, directional antenna, encryption, everything and anything available. Do I have to tell anyone I've done this? Nope, I might break a few laws, but the chance of getting caught is so slim it really doesn't factor very high.

Re:ECHELON/Warrantless Wiretapping

[mpe]

If I enter the US with the intention of downloading my data after crossing the border I will need to being a secret of some kind with me. Any encryption simple enough for me to carry the secret in my head can be cracked by brute force.

You can probably manage to carry arround a secret which will tell you where the key is in your head. e.g. the title and page number of a book. You could probably exchange this information in out of band plaintext, email or phone call.

Re:ECHELON/Warrantless Wiretapping

[Halo1]

Echelon's existence has been pretty thoroughly described and analysed by the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A5-2001-0264&language=EN&mode=XML

(resolution on "the existence of Echelon": http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2001-0441+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN )

So I don't think you can still really call it a secret.

Re:ECHELON/Warrantless Wiretapping

[Scrameustache]

All data moving into and out of the US via the internet/other communications infrastructure is subject to searches by the US government. One program is Echelon, and the people who've tired to report on it and call attention to it are generally considered nut-jobs and conspiracy theorists (I'm not sure why, stories on it are always confirmed by credible sources, and the program was never strictly denied by the feds).

Someone else clearly has no idea either :-) Echelon is so 1950's and simply has never existed in the way you claim. Aside from this it is a physical impossibility anyway. Anyone calling attention to this persistent little word is actually somewhat deserving of the phrase you have used. This is simply because they close their eyes to reality in favour of a good old conspiracy theory instead.

Thursday, 6 July, 2000, 04:13 GMT 05:13 UK
The Echelon spy system, whose existence has only recently been acknowledged by US officials, is capable of hoovering up millions of phone calls, faxes and emails a minute.

Its owners insist the system is dedicated to intercepting messages passed between terrorists and organised criminals.

But a report published by the European Parliament in February alleges that Echelon twice helped US companies gain a commercial advantage over European firms.

former CIA director James Woolsey, in an article in March for the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged that the US did conduct economic espionage against its European allies, though he did not specify if Echelon was involved.

this just BEGS for someone...

[Khyber]

to write a malicious virus for the express purpose of screwing up any other computer that information gets on. Hell, one could feign ignorance and smake it look like the laptop just had a bad spyware infection that brought lots of crap to its knees.

Thank you for giving us yet ANOTHER WEAKNESS TO FIX, USGOVT. We'll be sending you the bill in a month.

i don't get it

[i_b_don]

What's really the goal? why is this an issue? If the government is really looking for something specific in laptops there should be an automated process where they plug in a thumb drive on EVERYONE's laptop and sort through all your stuff, not some schmo rambling through your files who doesn't have a clue. That doesn't do squat and serves no meaningful purpose.

Really, what the hell are they looking for? This almost seems like the government equivalent of a governmental Mt Everest. They do it "because they can". It seems to me the same as giving everyone a drug test as they cross the border and then arresting those who test positive.

There's nothing that is getting "smuggled" across our border on laptops that isn't going across in 1000x more massive streams over the internet. The idea that the fear of terrorism is involved is simply ludicrous. What's the thought here, that someone was writing their terrorist memorandum in MS word while on the plane and the border agent is going to turn on the laptop and see it???

This is mindbogglingly stupid.

What the hell is the real motivation here?

d

This policy is hurting the US already

[OMG]

Let me assure you that I do know quite a few people who refrain from traveling to the USA for doing business nowadays. One, you are being treated like a criminal at the border, with the fingerprints reexported to the criminal database of your homeland, two, having all you data copied at the border is ... unthinkable.

Now, if you won't do this to American citizens anymore, great. Does not help all the other business people from around the world.

And lastly, if the Dollar wouldn't have this "all time low" right now, many people would not see a reason to spend their holidays in the USA either.

You just don't be surprised when it hits you, please.

I love governments

[zmollusc]

Sir! Sir! Somebody copied a song on their computer to someone else's computer!

ZOMFG! Quick, make some legislation that pisses on civil rights and prosecute the shit out of anyone copying files! Get Bill on the phone and have him write a load of restrictive crap into everybody's operating system. Copying Files Must Be Stopped!!

Sir! Sir! Somebody took a computer with them when they left the country for a couple of hours!

ZOMFG! Copy all his files! Distribute copies to all the many security agencies!

On a technicality...

[interactive_civilian]

At customs, you apparently aren't in the US yet, so the constitution does not apply.

At least, that is the kind of logic that people who defend this or at least shrug it off as nothing use. I think it is bullshit, but well, it has precedent and seems to be the law. :-/

Re:On a technicality...

[Chrisq]

Strange.
The UK customs at the French end of the channel tunnel say that the customs post is UK territory in order to apply UK border control laws.

Re:On a technicality...

[VdG]

If you're not in the US yet, how can you have committed any crime in US jurisdiction?
If you are in the US then surely you're entitled to the protection of the US constitution?

Re:On a technicality...

[Ihlosi]

If you're not in the US yet, how can you have committed any crime in US jurisdiction? If you are in the US then surely you're entitled to the protection of the US constitution?

Your prenineeleventhink is simply appalling, citizen.

Re:On a technicality...

[will_die]

In the US it is an exception to the 4th admendment under the title of "border-search exception". Basiclly it allows custom officers to search people/property entering the country without a warrent. There is something like this in every country.

BTW UK has been doing electronic search and copying, only for a short time not practical, of devices since 1998. Don't know dates but other parts of Europe but they also do electronic search, got asked for laptop when recently going in and leaving Sweden.

Re:Has been legal since the Constitution was signe

[servognome]

Actually case law applying to searches at the border existed before 1904, specifically looking at customs searches for taxation and compliance purposes. And SCOTUS cites such border searches as a "traditional right" exercised by countries even before the formation of the US.

Blatant site pimping..

[rixster_uk]

Ladies and Gents - I am trying to collect incidents of security staff abuse (mainly at airports) in the vane hope that perhaps we can identify consistent transgressors of their authority and perhaps even send a message to the airlines that we are no longer going to give them our hard earned buckaroos if they don't put their (albeit indirectly employed) staff in line. I believe we can make a difference (as tacky as that sounds)

If you have a story, please either put it on the site or email it to me at admin@scareports.com . The site address is http://www.scareports.com/ . I apologise now for the rawness (I'm trialling django technology as well).

Get over it!

[elysium-os]

For how many years are you not allowed to bring guns on airplanes.

Still the second Constitutional amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well at that point you bear Arms, or am I way off here?

And screw foreign businessmen.

[scaryjohn]

At a Senate hearing tomorrow, privacy advocates and industry groups will urge the lawmakers to take action to protect the data and privacy of Americans not guilty of anything besides wanting to go home.

But if we can still use these searches for industrial espionage on foreign firms, well, Boy Howdy!

So if they copy my drive

[Amisinthe]

And I have copyright protected files on it, are they guilty of copyright infringement?