Slashdot Mirror
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..."'"
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.
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.
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?...
But...
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to at least consider that it is a bird of the family anatidae (apologies to Douglas Adams)
This is outrageous! and a 4th amendment violation.
Hitler may have lost WWII, but the forces of fascism and totalitarianism are still fighting the war and are winning.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070125.jpg
I thought it was funny the first time I read it, it's scary that it may be more true now. )=
They also cover 'all papers and other written documentation,'
How the hell does this not violate the "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." part of the 4th amendment, where is the SCOTUS case that ruled that US citizens upon returning to the US borders do not enjoy the protections of the constitution?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
BOFH from DHS : I have an excellent way to reduce our IT spending...
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
Its nice that government agencies regard the Constitution as toilet paper.
What they fail to realize is that all their power originates with that document, and in a way, it's like a contract between the government and the people. Since the government has decided to violate the terms (breach of contract), then maybe we should stop recognizing their authority, since they have chosen to invalidate that document that is the sole source of that authority?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
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.
Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had "plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant" to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.
Perhaps it's just a poor characterization of his statements, but it appears that Mr. Ahern just doesn't get it. Regardless of what authority the executive branch has had, he needs a pretty damn strong argument as to why these efforts don't infringe on "Americans'" privacy. I can't think of any reasonable argument that they do not. Whether it's a *justified* infringement is a somewhat subtler question, but these powers are certainly subject to abuse. Further, even the obscenely few restrictions on preserving the data after the investigation is completed are little consolation in the face of the many stories of data mishandling by government entities. Mr. Ahern desperately needs to get a clue.
Further, even as an American I take exception to the idea that it's only relevant for our government to protect "Americans'" privacy, as is implied by this quote. Again, it might be due to incomplete quoting, but I somehow doubt that. As a scientist who frequently works with international collaborators, it's really true that communities outside the U.S. are deciding to keep their business out of this country due to the ridiculous policies for entering. It's often just not worth the effort. Way to go, Executive Branch!!
The policies cover 'any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form
My brain is a device that can record patterns in an analog form. If they want it, they'll have to get it over my dead body ;-)
"Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
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.
Ah, the magic words!
I reckon you could even implement gun control in the US, if you reported that peados were using guns!
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.
You have to be *in* the US for your rights to be in effect.
No, remarkably, the 4th amendment says that the government cannot seize your papers. Is this the government? Check. Are these your papers? Check.
Let me know when you find the part of the amendment that says "except outside of the US".
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?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's not like there's some LAW that protects your personal effects against unreasonable searches and seizures or anything. Geez what are you guys, a bunch of terrorist-lovers?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Though I am in South Africa, not America.
I was dating a girl in Brazil (I married her later) and my company had several major projects in Nigeria. So I had regular flights to both countries (and both are common drug routes around here). Add to this long hair and a liking for heavy-metal t-shirts - I ended up on a watch list (nobody would confirm this but it became pretty obvious).
On my way out to see my girlfriend one time, I was searched on the plane (which they made late to do it) but my luggage was already in the hold and my hand luggage clean so they couldn't really finish the search.
When I came back, I was arrested on site. My bags were searched and I had to explain almost every item. Not the easiest of those was a bottle of home-made spirit-vinegar I bought in a small country town in Brazil as a gift for my mother. Finally, convinced my luggage was clean (now I am already two hours late, my cellphone isn't charged and I cannot even contact my ride who is waiting outside the door for me) they decide I need to be X-rayed in case I swallowed condoms.
So I wait. I finally convince the cop to at least let me talk to the person who is picking me up (my boss) - with him coming along, so three hours later my boss gets to find out why I didn't show (lucky for me - he was still there). We wait for another 2 hours. Meantime I am missing a major business deadline (which would end up costing me a small fortune) but me and my boss are talking shop about the various projects.
Still the police who are supposed to take me to the state hospital for X-rays haven't shown up. Finally the border-cop (who has been hearing us talk all this time) says: "I'm gonna let you go - I'm sure you're clean now but we have to be sure and if I keep you any longer I'm going to start running risk of false arrest complaints."
As he uncuffs me and I walk away I asked him: "So will you take my name OFF your watchlist now ?"
Him: "Who said your name was on a watchlist ?"
Me: "You picked me up at passport control by my name and face. You tried to search me on the way out as well. You kept me here for almost 5 hours while all the random screen cases were gone in 30 minutes, despite the fact that I was the only one who wasn't complaining and shouting at you for the annoyance and understood you are just doing your job. I know my regular flights include two well known drug routes over a three year period... you didn't have to SAY I'm on a watchlist - it's obvious."
He didn't say anything. I dropped it after that, didn't feel like more hassle but I must tell you it was one of the most annoying experiences of my life.
And the worst thing: planes always upset my stomach. I have no idea if this is because of the airline food or the airpressure but it does. Getting of that plane, the first thing I wanted to do was go to the little boys room for a little private meditation. I wasn't allowed to go to the loo (in case I flushed the evidence of swallowed drugs) - and I had to hold it in for five painful hours. I must tell you - many times during that wasted day I was tempted to just let it go, and leave them the mess to clean up.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Y'know, this might be an interesting idea...
Imagine if the passphrase to your key was the contents of a large binary on your system. Anyone trying to break it would just see a prompt asking for a passphrase; they'd never expect to have to do something like 'cat /usr/bin/mplayer | decrypt somefile'. No, they'd just run 'decrypt somefile' and try to type something in when prompted 'Enter your passphrase: '. And good luck brute-forcing it; you it'll take forever to brute-force a passphrase that size (/usr/bin/mplayer on my system is 8195KB...good luck brute-forcing that).
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I'm not sure about you, but /I/ store my USB stick with my encryption keys down south when traveling, if you catch my drift.
It sure is a pain in the ass to recover it though.
Imagine if the passphrase to your key was the contents of a large binary on your system.
Even better, set your passphrase to:
"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."
That way even if they do crack it they'll probably die of shame as they're typing it in.