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.

[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.

[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.

[Nuskrad]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jaysyn]

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

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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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: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.

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.

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.

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...

[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.

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).

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.