Slashdot Mirror
FISA and Border Searches of Laptops
With the recent attention to the DHS's draconian policy on laptop searches at borders, a blog post by Steven Bellovin from last month is worth wider discussion. Bellovin extrapolates from the DHS border policy on physical electronic devices and asks why authorities wouldn't push to extend it to electronic data transfers. "...it would seem to make little difference if the information is 'imported' into the US via a physical laptop or via a VPN, or for that matter by a Web connection. The right to search a laptop for information, then, is equivalent to the right to tap any and all international connections, without a warrant or probable cause. (More precisely, one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure; the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is.)"
The Constitution applies to any individual on U.S. soil, not just citizens.
Although, for purposes of border control, almost any search is considered lawful.
This won't stop anytime soon. The reason the law got enacted was because someone with kiddy pics got stopped at customs.
I see the latest update in this is that your mobile devices can seized.
http://www.wmexperts.com/featured/can_customs_seize_your_windows.html
Sec 2(a)(1) sums it up nicely:
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no search of the digital contents of the device or media may be based on the power of the United States to search a person and that person's possessions upon entry into the United States, unless that search is based on a reasonable suspicion regarding that person.
You're kidding yourself if you seriously think Obama or McCain are going to so much as lift a finger to change this. Both of them believe in rule by the government, for the government. Why the hell would they want to fight to gain the powers of the US president only to give them up to the people?
Plus I assume you are referring to Obama, but lets not forget he voted for FISA. We as a people need to figure it out that charismatic != honest and to take whatever either candidate says with a very large grain of salt. Remember, they only care about your vote and will gladly promise you the moon to get it. You'd think we would have learned this with President Bush II promising us a classical conservative utopia yet delivering a neo-conservative hell, but I guess we're all a little slow on the uptake.
Although I believe airport security checkpoints and border controls are considered "not US soil".
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Guess what, the NSA has been exercising "the right to tap any and all international connections" for decades. As long as one end of the connection is outside the US they can listen in.
Best Slashdot Co
THERE'S NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY ON THE INTERNET. IT'S JUST HOW IT WORKS. Your traffic badmouthing comcast might just be passed through a comcast router, or whatever have you. That's just how it works - you have very little control over your route on the internet. So until you come up with your own ISP, you're screwed.
He does make a fairly strong claim in John 8:56-59
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:56-59;&version=31;
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
In verse 59 the Jews knew what he was claiming, and that's why they tried to stone him.
Jesus did not say "before Abraham was born, I was". He said "I am".
For context see:
Exodus 3:13-14
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:13-14;&version=31;
13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . [b] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
Exactly. Confiscating laptops just syncs the Customs policy with what they are already doing with electronic traffic. Perfectly logical, citizen.
No, it isn't consistent. The US has long tapped international data traffic, but they don't block the traffic from arriving at its destination.
Any government has the right to secure their borders and search what comes into the country. This has been the case for centuries. Laptops, like anything else crossing the border, can be searched.
The problem is that they can now be seized WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. A year ago they needed probable cause to seize goods at the border.
It should be noted that Ron Paul and Eliot Engel sponsored legislation on July 31 to
ensure that a traveler entering the United States would be subject to searches of their data and digital equipment only if a border agent has a reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
Oh that Ron Paul, what a whack job! It's a shame he doesn't realize that the system is already fucked beyond our control and that he's simply giving those Americans foolish enough to listen to him a false glimmer of hope.
Your brain is not a computer.
First of all, most of you *worrying* this issue have gone back to work and will do nothing else about it. Nothing.
Second, based on the responses to the summary, I only see a few people who actually have some experience crossing borders. The rest of you need to unplug the cable TV, turn off the PC and do something else. Like travel, or get involved in a political issue like this one....
Third, the wisest travellers among us use the laptop like a thin client. Mail? Web-based or something else, definitely not POP. Media? MPD is nice. Any national interest can have my laptop because they'll find nothing. Now before you jump to the conclusion that I'm relying on "I've got nothing to hide" I'm not.
This is practical advice. Take it.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I say someone catalogs around 200 junky old laptops wipes them out completely(throw Linux on them) then crosses the border with all of them in their car. So border patrol has to take all of them and since they are all cataloged if you don't get all of them back charge them for theft.
What, just for kicks, when I have nothing better to do for, say, 3 to 5 days while they search me inside and out (might be smuggling something in his inner gastric system, you know... better hold on to him for a couple days, just to be safe... oh, and break out the rubber gloves), then go over every laptop with a forensic microcope? Hmm... better change that to 3 to 5 weeks, since they'll have been harassed enough at that point to lock me up "just in case".
The annoyance they can cause us outweighs the annoyance we can cause them by orders of magnitude. Not to mention the possibility that they will find something on one of these (assumedly second-hand) laptops that simply formatting the drive didn't wipe (and god forbid I actually zero the drive, what am I hiding?!?), and I could go to jail for a few decades for someone *else's* kiddie porn because I was crossing the border with 200 second-hand laptops in my car...
Oh, and there's these little things called import/export taxes, levees, and other restrictions. Crossing the border with 200 laptops in your vehicle is just begging for the customs officials to "detain" you for however long it takes them to get around to looking at every single item in your possession, if they don't find a reason to ship you to Gitmo after an hour of watching you giggling because you're "inconveniencing" them... It's not too hard, I wouldn't think, to beat the snot out of you out back for "resisting" them after they "found" some "incriminating evidence" (Isn't the chemical formula for TNT in that molecules screensaver? That'd probably do it, assuming they didn't just plant some "suspicious putty" on you in the first place).
In other words, rethink your civil disobedience; the national borders are not safe for U.S. citizens, nevermind foreigners. As someone else said earlier in this discussion, it's looking like we've chosen the "secure our borders by making it less than worth your time and inconvenience to come here, even on official business" route.