Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACLU Sues For Records On Border Laptop Searches

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-are-you-looking-at dept.

TechPolitik writes "The ACLU has sued the US Customs and Border Protection agency under the Freedom of Information Act, aiming to obtain records on the agency's policy of searching laptops at the border. Under the policy, the CBP can search through financial records, photos, and Web site histories, and retain that information for unspecified periods of time. The ACLU is arguing that the information is necessary to understand whether the CBP may be violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable and unwarranted searches. The agency has so far not responded to requests for comment."

15 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. It's a search without a warrant. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, it's a fourth amendment violation.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Congrats - you're the first (of many) posts by people who have not read the entire Constitution. UNREASONABLE searches may not be conducted without a warrant, not ALL searches. It's up to the courts to determine after the fact whether someone's rights were violated with an unreasonable warrantless search, not slashdot armchair lawyers. Write to your congresscritters to let them know you think it is unreasonable so they can put pressure on the executive branch to not do the search in the first place.

    2. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ACLU's kind of taking a weird angle at it, but I fully support their cause.

      The retention period of the data is irrelevant, in my opinion. The fact that they deem fit to search laptops or other electronic devices at all without probable cause, let alone a warrant, and considering the highly private nature of most peoples electronic devices, seems obviously contrary to the intentions of the 4th amendment.

      Physical searches to board airplanes, regardless of destination seem very reasonable given the public endangerment risk from terrorism like sabotage, bombs, hijacking, etc. Beyond addressing physical security risks, other types of searches should not be conducted without a warrant. If they deem someone a risk, they can detain them and obtain a warrant. If it's not worth the effort to obtain a warrant, then the search isn't justified.

      Simple as that.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by CRC'99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fun part is - that as a non-US citizen, I look at something like this and think "What the hell is the US Government wanting to know what people have on their computer as they visit the US?".

      What happened to the whole idea of freedoms and liberty for all that every US history class tells you America was founded on?

      The more I hear about this kind of thing happening, the less I want to visit the US and chance of me doing business with American businesses gets lower and lower.

      It seems to this foreigner that the US government needs to be told to pull it's fucking head in and act like a government - not the Gestapo.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    4. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      got some news from you the socialist EU is 1000x worse

      That's odd: I work in a company where employees can be sent all over the world with laptops, and the only country where we've received specific instructions on the carriage of sensitive information while crossing the border is America.

      It's possible that you're correct and the EUSSR is actually 1000x worse, but from foreign companies' standpoints travel to America is becoming a serious liability; your policies are going to harm your economy far more than EVIL LAPTOP TERRORISTS ever will.

    5. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In any case, the claim is that they are looking for evidence that the owner of the laptop is a terrorist.

      Ah yes, terrorism. The new boogieman that replaced drunk driving and child molesters. Wouldn't any halfway smart terrorist just buy a laptop here in the states and download whatever he needs through an encrypted connection to the terrorist data center back home in Dirkadirkastan?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I mean it is 200 years old document, some of it is hardly relevant today."

      I call bullshit. There is nothing in the constitution of the United States, or the amendments, that is irrelevant today. The amendment prohibiting the possession and consumption of alcohol is irrelevant, yes, BUT, there is a subsequent amendment repealing that amendment. It is a nice tidy document, which defines how government should be run. All other laws are supposed to fit within that guide.

      That very relevant document is the litmus paper used to test all other laws in this nation.

      It hasn't been necessary to change that constitution very many times, because the people who wrote it put a lot of work, and a lot of foresight into it.

      I'll thank you not to declare my constitution as irrelevant. I rely on it for my freedoms of speech, my right to vote, my right to bear arms (yes, my PERSOANAL RIGHT to bear a firearm), my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      That document is so relevant, that I am perfectly willing to go out and fight for it despite the fact that I'm an old bastard with sons in uniform.

      Thank you, I'll step down off the ammo box now...... (an ammo box can be used for a soapbox or a ballot box, there's no need to keep three seperate boxes around)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have no idea what Rule of Men means do you? Rule of Law is when something is written down as law, immutable (to a certain degree) and applying to everyone. Rule of Men is where the only law is whatever someone says today, and it can change tomorrow.

      The Constitution is Rule of Law for the simple reason that if the president (for example) wanted to arrest someone for the crime of having a certain video game he can't do it, because it's not a legal thing to arrest someone for. Under Rule of Men that's entirely possible assuming the President determines the law.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    8. Re:It's a search without a warrant. by avxo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You ask for proof, so I'll briefly point out United States v. Montoya De Hernandez , United States v. Flores-Montano , United States v. Ramsey and of course the relatively recent cases of United States v. Arnold and United States v. Ickes. The judicial predecent is pretty firmly established: the government has a legitimate interest in knowing who is coming into the country and what is being brought in. As a result, the government has singificant leeway (but not a carte blanche) to conduct searches at the border without running afoul of 4th Amendment. Feel free to ignore all this, but the Courts don't.

  2. Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If ACLU wins based on fourth amendment basis on the right of people to be secure in their persons & papers, then the border searches will be extremely time consuming as each search will need to accompanied by a warrant from a judge.

    You say that like it's a bad thing. I for one don't consider it advantageous for violations of my right to privacy to be simple and convenient for all concerned.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. These peanuts are the BOMB! by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its a fishing expedition, they dont have cause other than visiting a 3rd world country. Visiting a 3rd world country = sex crimes they say, wrong.

    Myself, I'm such an asshole, I'd military format the laptop HD, with a "FUCK CUSTOMS!!!" dos bootup banner, before I come back into the USA, after I copied anything over the Internet to my home PC. Of course I'd lose my laptop, because they would take it to scan the HD for anything.

    Really, I'm already pissed I have to take my shoes off to fly, like my shoes are now a terrorist threat.

    When they hire bagage handlers at minium wages, and these fuckers steal laptops. I read that over 1000 laptops are stolen from the aiports a week. WTF? So by this logic, if there was a terrorist threat, they could just plant a bomb on the luggage.

    I'm so tired of the "Security theater" show they put on. its a scam. At least some of us are actually calling them out on this bullshit. Bravo for the ACLU for doing this. I walk a fine line at protesting and getting tazed for being a smart ass. I know one of these days my comments at "these peanuts are the bomb" are going to land my ass in federal prison. But at least I can write a book and make a million..

    Damn what a country.

  4. Re:more info by rhook · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its not non-compliance when a federal judge has ruled that you cannot be forced to reveal your encryption keys. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html

  5. Hide your private information on a USB stick. by bezenek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Carry a large USB stick. Back up your personal information (browser history, saved email, etc.) to it and put it in your pocket or even better, mail it home to yourself at your destination before you board the airplane. When you arrive, replace the personal information.

    Looking through browser history is equivalent to asking you to provide your personal diary in order to get into the country. Similarly, looking at your saved email is equivalent to requiring you to bring copies of all your personal correspondence for the previous 12 months in order to get into the country.

    This is really, really disgusting, and should not happen in the United States of America.

    Todd

    --
    Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
  6. Re:Very Tricky but pathbreaking area by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd got a bit farther than that, and say that i consider it a citizen's duty to require public employees to obey the law. If a cop ever wants to search my car in the future, my answer will be "officer, sorry for the inconvenience, but if you believe you have probable cause to search my vehicle, then you shouldn't have any difficulty convincing a judge to issue a warrant. I'll wait."

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. Not necessarily by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    What a judge could well rule is that the searches are allowed, but they have restrictions as to what they can do afterwords. This is rather likely. The searches themselves are probalby legal. The supreme court has ruled on the issue of border searches and said that the government has the right to secure its borders and that part of that can be to search a person and their belongings. Their view is more or less that you KNOW you can be searched at the border, so it isn't reasonable for you to assume privacy there.

    Ok, but that was back in the day when laptops and such weren't an issue. This was regarding a physical search. So while they can look through your bag for drugs, once they are done with the search you and your belongings are on their way, provided you don't have something illegal.

    The problem here is that they are taking laptops, without charge, warrant or even reasonable suspicion, holding them for indefinite times, and refusing to say what they do with them. They won't say what they are looking for, who can get a copy of the data, how long it is retained, when you get your hardware back, nothing. That is rather different than the kind of search the SC said was ok.

    So it could well come down that searches are ok, but this kind is not, or that they have to have specific limits on the data they get and so on.

    You discover it is like that in Canada. They can search your, and can seize your laptop with a reason. However there are specific limits as to what can be done and how long they can have it, and they are up front about it. You can find them online (which is how I know about them). That's real different from the US where DHS just says "We can do what we want and don't have to tell you anything."

    I would predict that is how this will go. The government will be allowed to search you at the border, however they'll be told they can't just grab laptops and hold them forever with no accountability.