DHS Allowed To Take Laptops Indefinitely

andy1307 writes with a Washington Post story giving details of Department of Homeland Security policies for border searches of laptops and other electronic devices (as well as papers). (We have been discussing border searches for a while now.) DHS says such procedures have long been in place but were "disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter," according to the article. Here is a link to the policy (PDF, 5 pages). "Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption, or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement... DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies — which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens — are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism... The policies cover 'any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form,' including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover 'all papers and other written documentation,' including books, pamphlets and 'written materials commonly referred to as "pocket trash..."'"

Comments

Degradation of rights for nothing

[infalliable]

Worst part is despite the searches and seizures, they accomplish very little. You inconvenience and step all over the rights of average, law-abiding citizens to give the impression of safety.

Re:Degradation of rights for nothing

[Exanon]

A few other problems: I was going to go to this years DEFCON but because of the laptop checks and the registration requirement (notifying the government 3 weeks before coming to the country) I have canceled the trip. (No, I really don't have anything I am secretive about on my laptop).

My story can be seen as a pitiful example. But I heard rumors from former colleagues at a company I used to work for that they have changed their security measures on corporate laptops when traveling to the US.
It includes taking the laptop down to the IT department and having them make an image of the HDD, then it is replaced by a new one, the image is downloaded when on US soil. Probably through VPN or similar.

The question that raises is the same that was raised in Sweden over the FRA-legislation: The possiblity of industrial espionage. So when both private and corporate trips might be canceled or postponed, doesn't that hurt the US economy?

Re:Degradation of rights for nothing

[JavaBear]

Somehow this doesn't make me feel any safer, quite the opposite actually.

I don't know who I fear the most, Al-Queda, or the US government, It's pretty much a toss-up at the moment, and I'm not so sure that the needle won't end on the latter.

Re:Degradation of rights for nothing

[Shakrai]

I don't know who I fear the most, Al-Queda, or the US government

That's easy. Al-Queda can't take away your freedom. All they can take away is your life. The US Government can do both.....

Re:Degradation of rights for nothing

[fredrated]

"the UK, where a judge has upheld the notion that a Muslim family dispute ought to be covered by Sharia"

You say it right there in your post, it was the UK judge that granted this, it was not taken by force by the Muslims. This is exactly what the poster is saying, al Qaida did not seize this, it was given up by us.

Re:Degradation of rights for nothing

[cliffski]

No it accomplishes a lot. It decimates USAs international tourism. Nobody I know has flown to holiday in the USA since 9/11. Your security bullshit makes the trip unenjoyable.
Meanwhile Canadian hotel companies are doing well.

Re:Degradation of rights for nothing

[Shakrai]

Have you not heard about the UK, where a judge has upheld the notion that a Muslim family dispute ought to be covered by Sharia, in addition to the normal UK legal system?

How is that any different from the Jewish Beth din courts that have operated in New York City (and other parts of the US?) for decades and done much the same thing? I really don't see a problem with this as long as these "courts" don't have the rule of law and as long as nobody can be compelled against their will to resolve a dispute in them.

Whether they do it by force or by subterfuge, "invading" is their goal, and they're already doing it

You sound like someone warning of the yellow peril in the early 20th century. Somehow I doubt that most Muslims have the goal of "invading" the Western World. Europe has their own problems with Muslim immigration that they will need to contend with but I seriously question the notion that it's anything more sinister than people looking for work.

See also the publicly funded Muslim-based elementary schools in Detroit

Citation? I don't have an issue with Muslim-based schools (how many Catholic-based schools exist in this country?) but I would take issue with public funds going to them.

Or how about the special exceptions made at an American university for school-funded foot baths for the Muslim facility?

How is that any different from an employer that gives Jewish employees a day off for Yum Kippur or arranges for alternative meals for Hindu staff when the cafeteria is serving beef?

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this alarmist argument. We've heard the exact same things said about every single culture that has ever immigrated into this country -- even "white" ones like the Irish or Polish. Somehow none of them have ever managed to subvert the United States. I'm not real worried about the Muslims doing so either. To listen to your post one would think that there is some sort of master plan that all Muslims are aware of to sneak into the West and subvert us from the inside out.

The worst part

[dreamchaser]

What is even worse is that if you try to use encryption to maintain a level of privacy and security, that will just mean they'll keep it longer while they try to crack it.

Re:The worst part

[link-error]

    Strong encryption with internet storage is the only way to go now I'm afraid.

Re:The worst part

[digitig]

Who decides what is "reasonable"? The equipment is returned when the investigation is "complete", but I saw nothing in the article saying how long they could take over that investigation. And if you try to sue for return of your property, what could you offer as evidence that the time they are taking is unreasonable, if they claim that more time is still needed (particularly as there's no requirement even of suspicion)?

Re:The worst part

[Hoi Polloi]

You shouldn't even have to resort to countermeasures in the first place. It is like saying "I guess I'll wear a face fask to protect myself from being sucker punched by the TSA." You're accepting an unacceptable situtation. The only acceptable response to this policy (aka abuse) is to ban it legally and remove its supporters from the government. Unreasonable search and seizure shouldn't even be allowed now anyway.

Re:The worst part

[bjorniac]

No one is found innocent. They are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The only findings are guilty and not guilty. Sure, it may sound like semantics but it's pretty important as a distinction - you don't have to prove your innocence.

Re:The worst part

[SpicyLemon]

Amendment IV -
"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."

We all know, though, that the government has a very strange way of interpreting the constitution sometimes. They'll use some argument along the lines of, "Well, since we're not getting a warrent, the 4th amendment doesn't apply."

Re:The worst part

[geobeck]

...you don't have to prove your innocence.

You must be new to Amerika.

Re:The worst part

[backslash_forward]

If your goal is to generate a lawsuit, like Mr. Hellar, then go ahead and be an ass - just be aware that you're going to suffer pain for your goal.

And that is how they win -- if they haven't already. What is it, specifically, about standing up for ones rights that makes him/her an ass? Perception is a very powerful tool. If people perceive tyranny the norm then it makes the tyrants jobs a whole lot easier.

Re:The worst part

[davester666]

Don't forget, you could have written things in invisible ink on your clothes, so they'll have to also keep all of them as well.

So, you get to come out of customs with absolutely nothing [as there COULD be some writing on anything]. And you'll have to be exposed to massive doses of x-rays just to check if you've swallowed anything.

And yet, all the "terrorists" have to do is go to a BestBuy and purchase a new laptop, or even just go to a public Internet terminal and download whatever information they need via any number of protocols, with no problem at all, in a manner that should be virtually untraceable as to who sent or received the information.

So, more inconvenience with zero benefit [at least, no benefits for the stated purpose, which is to hinder terrorism somehow].

Now, this is an ideal program for economic espionage by the US government, as they basically state that all your information will be put up on a server and made available to pretty much any gov't agency to access if they want. And it will be less likely that all businessmen will take the time to protect their information that all but the most stupid terrorists would...

Their law versus ours

[fudgefactor7]

Just because their little law says they can do it doesn't mean it doesn't run afoul of the Contitutional protections. Were this to be challenged, it would be killed pretty quickly: one cannot instigate such as this in the name of "terrorism" and not expect at least one challenge on "unreasonable search and seizure." You cannot fight global terrorism by turning the USA into a police-state. All that accomplishes is angering the populace....and you remember the last time Americans became angry with their government?...

Re:Their law versus ours

[Erie Ed]

I bet over 2/3 of americans either a. don't know that this is going on or b. don't care. Even if people actually gave a damn we tend to not take any action.

Re:Their law versus ours

[Anonymous Coward]

and you remember the last time Americans became angry with their government?...

They were beaten with clubs, battons and shot with riot rounds?

 

I can only think of two words

[LoadWB]

Normally I would put together a verbose, and perhaps even eloquent, response to such information. But I can only think of two words.

Bull shit.

We are losing, people. We are losing our rights and there will be more to come. That our own personal property can be seized "to fight terrorism" on the terms presented is absolute, unadulterated, pure and uncut bull shit.

I'd rather have freedom than "security"

[Shinary]

You know, as an American I can say that I would gladly give up my "right" to security for this crap to just go away. Let the people protect themselves from the invisible enemy and force the government to focus on problems that really matter. Like the country's growing illiteracy rate, or the growing rate of obesity, or hey... how about the economy going to shit. Oh I forgot, we need those fat and stupid people working for the DHS at airports and other "high security" areas. They need jobs too. Homeland Security was just another huge mistake by the Bush administration that I hope will be corrected at some point in the near future. I love my country and all, but if the United States keeps following down this road, I am gone.

Industrial Espionage...

[TomRK1089]

What if your laptop contains trade secrets or the like? Wouldn't that constitute industrial espionage to decrypt said information? What if a DHS employee has a relative who competes in that field? I can only imagine the potential messes there.

Re:Industrial Espionage...

[Ihlosi]

What if your laptop contains trade secrets or the like?

Too bad.

Wouldn't that constitute industrial espionage to decrypt said information?

It's only illegal if you're not the government.

What if a DHS employee has a relative who competes in that field?

Good for him !

I can only imagine the potential messes there.

You misspelled "opportunities".

Think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote in an opinion piece published last month in USA Today that "Searches have uncovered violent jihadist materials as well as images of child pornography."
Ah, the magic words!

I reckon you could even implement gun control in the US, if you reported that peados were using guns!

yes, except

[Reality Master 201]

The fact that this kind of rule may be unconstitutional means exactly nothing unless you can convince the judicial branch to rule it so, the executive branch to respect that ruling, and the legislative branch to bitchslap the executive if/when it refuses to behave.

There's at least two items in the list that I won't be holding my breath for.

DId the former USSR do this? China? Vietnam?

[jotaeleemeese]

Vietnam didn't. I travelled there several times with my laptop and never had any issues.

Can somebody give me a good reason why I should not continue my personal boycott against travel to the US?

I would have to leave all my gadgetry behind at home. Absolutely appalling. It is not the fact that a seizure can happen, but that nonchalantly the authorities have the power to keep your stuff for as long as they please. Nice way to nick an iPod.

I used to go to old U.S. of A. once a year, spending a reasonable amount of money each time (hotel, plain tickets, etc.) and a few times I took stop overs in the US in my way home when visiting my family, for which uncle Sam surely derived some money as well.

I know nobody cares, but more and more people are *actively* avoiding the US when travelling.

I went to Canada instead earlier this year, and the difference could have not been starker: I was granted a visa on arrival (I am Mexican, no bloody way that would ever happen in the US, even if I was coming from Europe, as I normally do), the people are friendly and although are losing soldiers to the Taliban more than what would be reasonable to expect, they are not idiotically paranoid.

USians: when are you going to recover the essence of the goodness that your country promised when it was founded?