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.)"

23 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. WWJTWU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?

    1. Re:WWJTWU by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Funny

      the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is

      With this Administration's tortured definition of torture, one shouldn't be surprised when they have an unreasonable definition of unreasonable.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:WWJTWU by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Jesus was here today, I know EXACTLY what he would do.

      He would scream "Metal carts, pulled by unseen demonic horses! Iron mountains!" in Aramaic, then go hide somewhere.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. You wish... by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much as I agree that there will probably be a change in course, rights, once take away, are very slow to return. I can foresee that a new president keen to lose his 'inexperienced' image would be reluctant to take that strong a stand against the powers that be at Langley, etc.

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    1. Re:You wish... by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, you can't blame this one on Bush. As much as you'd like to.

      But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush, or more appropriately, the people that voted for him. Before all the hysteria, it I was clean, they had to let me go. Not any more. Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:You wish... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.

      Wow. First to see that in a post that isn't clearly a troll, and then to see it modded +5? Slashdot's really turning into Digg.

      Frankly, your post is one of the most absurd ones I've ever seen on Slashdot.

      Pretty soon you'll be criticising people for not posting at all, like they're trying to hide their opinions from the Slashdot masses. Then you'll be mugging them. I've seen these scary, slippery slopes before.

    3. Re:You wish... by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Experience, sonny. I've watched them tear apart my car more than once. I've been flagged for not having a credit card and checked luggage. I've bought my tickets less than 24 hours before departure, with, god forbid, cash! Evidently I fit a "profile". While all their smuggler and "terrorist" buddies wizz on through for answering all their questions "correctly". They are goons. I don't care if you think it's troll. It's the truth. And it ain't pretty.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:You wish... by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I had my luggage searched at O'Hare by a US Marshal and a DEA agent all because I bought a ticket in Dallas with cash an hour before the flight. They claim there was a dog in CVG that alerted on my bag, but there was nothing that would have caused that, unless the dog was trained to find Colgate toothpaste. They only stopped when I told them that the gate agent in CVG told me there was a problem with my bag. Even after that, they kept me under surveillance until my ride arrived. Did I mention this was under the Clinton administration? The point here is that this treatment is not new. It's always unpleasant. And, you are right. You did fit a profile by making a ticket purchase with cash shortly before the scheduled flight. I watched them pull the back seat out of our car in the late '60s because we had crossed into Mexico too many times in too few days. As much as I dislike what George the Second has done, this behavior can not be blamed on him.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  3. No offense, but... by apodyopsis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No offense, but the ridiculous visa situation, warrant less searches and other issues certainly will secure the US borders.

    After all, any country is safer if nobody wants to go and visit it anymore.

    "I want everyone to remember why they need us" - liberties and freedoms that are eroded in the name of security and protection never seem to return once the threat is lifted again, and each one is another step on the path to Totalitarianism.

    1. Re:No offense, but... by GeckoAddict · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously... if you look at the happenings over the last few years, I'd say the US Gov has taken V for Vandetta as a guidebook on how to create an all powerful government.

      We already have our own versions of unlimited surveillance and a 'black bag' type system if they think you're a terrorist.

      While I don't support the theory that the US gov did 9/11 themselves... given their actions so far it's not that far of a stretch to say they may have held back from preventing it in an effort to give themselves more power... or at a minimum are using the situation to their advantage.

      Terrorists goal is to disrupt life, and make us change our way of living because of fear. I'd say that we're letting them win every time we remove another freedom due to fear.

  4. Unreasonable by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the Supreme Court has said that the Constitutional limits on Copyright, "for a limited time", that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means, then it follows that "unreasonable" means whatever Congress says it means, too.

    The cops opened my unlocked garage and "had a look around", I guess that's reasonable. They searched my car because it was parked outside a dope house (I had no idea; my passengers were collecting money owed them by a slumlord they were cleaning houses for) as well as my person. I guess that's not unreasonable, either.

    Why is it they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?

    The Supreme court, in effect, says that the Constitutuon is meaningless. We, the people, no longer have any rights. And you can bet your wife's ass that they're already reading your mail and seeing who you connect to on the internet. The people running things today don't believe in the rule of law.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  5. Re:Old school by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a teletype connected to a tin can that crosses the border with a long peice of twine, connected to another tin can connected to a modem.

    That seems to fit the "definition of unreasonable" quite nicely.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  6. Contrast with the mail by slashqwerty · · Score: 5, Informative
    At the postal museum in Washington, D.C. a sign reads:

    At the beginning of the new America, nearly all the news came by mail. When the Constitution was signed, it was rushed by post riders to every town that had a printing press. And that's how the newspapers were able to bring the resounding news of how we were to govern ourselves. The newspapers knew of it first by mail.

    In England, for centuries, the mail was frequently scrutinized by agents of the Crown or of the Parliament. It could be worth your life to write a letter that might be seen as having the seeds of treason. This did not happen here. From the beginning, by and large, the U.S. mails have been free of eyes other than our own and those of the sender.

    To the framers of the Constitution, the mail made the engine of democracy run--along with the newspapers. And newspapers then printed a good deal of correspondence. Rufus Putnam, a key military figure in the Revolutionary War, said, "The knowledge diffused among the people by newspapers, by correspondence between friends" was crucial to the future of the nation. "Nothing can be more fatal to a republican government than ignorance among its citizens."

    As a journalist, I have sometimes been asked where my leads for stories come from. Much of the time, they come from opening the mail. Readers from all over the country send personal stories, newspaper clippings, local court decisions, and student newspaper editorials arguing for the First Amendment rights of students. There is no other way I would have known about these stories except through the mail. It is through letters that I often receive highly confidential stories about unfairness in the justice system from people who would not trust any other form of communication.

    The framers of the Constitution knew how vital the mail would be when Article I was written to protect privacy of communication through the mail.

    Nat Hentoff is a columnist for the Washington Post and the Village Voice, and the author of Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee. How the Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.

    1. Re:Contrast with the mail by adpsimpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US was founded after a long fight for freedom from the UK, an oppressive parent country - and the constitution reflects that, deliberately enshrining and limiting the rights of the government, not the people. If the right was not granted to the government, the government didn't have it.

      Specific limitations were explained where they contrasted to the old system. For example secure in your person and papers, right to form a well organised malitia, absolute freedom of speech etc - all these things defined as actions the government could not interfere with, where previously they were frequently interfered with and/or denied.

      Since that time, the common interpretation seems to have reversed; it is now assumed that if the right is not granted to the people, the people don't have it.

      So where clearly the point of privacy in mail was meant to contrast to the previous system by granting privacy in communications (like mail), it has now been taken to mean no privacy in any form of communication except mail.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
  7. I'll make a prediction by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's my prediction, on record: this policy will be a real boon for micro laptop companies like Asus. Who is going to want to travel with an expensive laptop that can get snatched up by an avaristic or paranoid border cop? It bothers me to no end that they don't need due processes for this because I have a new MacBook Pro. The thing is worth $2,000 and is precisely the sort of thing that would become a target of something like this where the cops turned seized cars into a private car rental service for their own pleasure.

    So I guess what'll happen is that people will take an Eee PC with them, and then download the data as needed from some offsite backup service. That, and the whole problem of people avoiding business travel to the United States.

  8. Re:Look on the bright side... by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "he next administration (assuming Obama wins) will probably be more interested in taking away our "treasure"."

    Actually I hate to be the one to break it to you but your treasure is already gone. what is likely to happen is your going to get the bill for it by the next president.

  9. Save the Children: Watch out for the terrorists. by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From here : At a Senate hearing in June, Larry Cunningham, a New York prosecutor who is now a law professor, defended laptop searches--but not necessarily seizures--as perfectly permissible. Preventing customs agents from searching laptops "would open a vulnerability in our border by providing criminals and terrorists with a means to smuggle child pornography or other dangerous and illegal computer files into the country," Cunningham said.

    In our (as a country) fear of Terrorism and our fear for the safety of our children, we are slowly strangling ourselves of our vitality. Soon, we as a country will be like scared little children hiding under our beds from a thunderstorm. And in the meantime, the rest of the World will eventually pass us by.

  10. Re:Look on the bright side... by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes and the other party will not stop pointing out how the Democrats increased taxes (to pay for it all) and people will buy into it electing Republican again in 4 years who then will continue to rape your rights and take your money. (Democrats and Republicans can be easily changed above)

    As long as people do not start voting for an alternative, there will be no alternative. If you say that voting for an alternative will not work, please repair your democratic system before you try to export it.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. HR6702 by Oh+no,+it's+Dixie · · Score: 5, Informative
    If HR6702 is passed, this dangerous course can be reversed.

    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.

  12. Streetlight effect by drgould · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I forget where I read it, but I recently a news article that mentioned the "Streetlight Effect".

    We all know the classic joke. A man is walking down the street when he sees a drunk, on his knees, looking for something under a streetlight. The man stops and asks, "What are you looking for?" and the drunk replies. "My keys." So the man gets down on his knees to help him find his keys.

    After a half-hour of fruitless searching the man asks, "Well, where did you lose them?" and the drunk replies, "Over in that alley, but the light's better over here."

    This sort of security theater reminds me of that joke.

    We can't find Bin Laden. We can't stop al Qaeda. We can't (won't) secure our borders with Mexico. But we damn well make air travel a living hell for millions of innocent air travelers because, well, the light's better over here.

  13. Re:Look on the bright side... by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    your laptop contains copywrite material, that you probably don't own. under us law you need the copywrite owner's permission to copy this. the border agent is violating copywrite law when he/she images your drive. if you have a login then that counts as a copywrite protection device, and that means a dmca violation as well. i'm surprised nobody has taken this to court yet.

  14. Re:Old school by xalorous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My laptop has a sticker on it that says "Property of Exxon-Mobil" and a bar code that looks very official. It has never been searched at the border.

    --
    TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
  15. Re:Look on the bright side... by limaxray · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.