Homeland Security Changes Laptop Search Policy

IronicToo writes "The US Government has updated its policy on the search and seizure of laptops at border crossing. 'The long-criticized practice of searching travelers' electronic devices will continue, but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information.'"

Comments

5 Days?

[elzurawka]

So, now they will just take away my laptop for 4 days. Good thing my flight is in two hours, and I am not back for 6 weeks...

-EL

Re:5 Days?

[zippthorne]

Well, obviously, you should have planned ahead and arrived at the airport one hundred twenty-three hours before your flight, to give yourself ample time to find parking and clear security. It's the responsible thing to do.

Re:5 Days?

[Korin43]

And I'm sure we all believe that they'll delete their copy of your data..

Re:5 Days?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably will. There's no need to keep it and it just takes up space. Do you really think they want your stuff?

Re:5 Days?

[s73v3r]

They'll delete it. Just like the Geek Squad deletes all of your pornography they copy to their personal drives just in case something goes wrong while they replace a disk drive.

Re:5 Days?

[Attila Dimedici]

My understanding was that this was about when someone goes through Customs. That happens when you arrive in the country, not when you are getting on a flight.

Re:5 Days?

[PainKilleR-CE]

They might delete their copy, but first they'll delete your copy, accidentally, of course, and somehow they'll manage to have a daily backup of everything else on the machine that they used to delete your data except for your data.

Re:5 Days?

[IdleTime]

That is why my laptop contains nothing of interest whatsoever. Any interesting data is kept on encrypted partitions on an 1Tb USB based disk, normally placed safely in the checked luggage.

They can take and keep my laptop all they want, I'll just hook up the real data disk to a new laptop and install Truecrypt and I'm good to go.

Re:5 Days?

[gnick]

...normally placed safely in the checked luggage..

You're apparently using a definition of "safely" with which I was previously unaware.

Re:5 Days?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> ...normally placed safely in the checked luggage..
> You're apparently using a definition of "safely" with which I was previously unaware.

Checking baggage is safe-- that is, safe for the crew and passengers. It's just not safe for guitars.

Re:5 Days?

[pig_man1899]

They will delete your informaiton once it is determined that there is no legal reason to hold it. Unfortunately it will take another 18-24 months to determine if there is legal reason or not.

Re:5 Days?

[malloc]

My understanding was that this was about when someone goes through Customs. That happens when you arrive in the country, not when you are getting on a flight.

It does, except when you come from Canada, where there's pre-flight customs clearance. And according to http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2008-I-001/documents%5Ctop_20_countries.xls Canada is the top country of origin when flying into the US, so it affects a large number of people.

-Malloc

Re:5 Days?

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

During which time a new law will be passed...

Re:5 Days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Have you been paying attention for the last several months? Did you read the article? Have you ever crossed the US Border?

It seems obvious to me that the answer to those questions is no. The policy is talking about laptop searches at border crossings. When you go through customs entering into the US, your "checked baggage" is not checked, you are carrying it or pulling it, etc...

Re:5 Days?

[shacky003]

Speaking as a former (thank god) district geek manager, there is a hell of a lot more copied regularly from customer pc's than just porn..
I've fired services techs (now called "geeks") for making copies of personal data including bank/money/quicken databases, address books, etc..

Re:5 Days?

[AHuxley]

Well have a look at "ACLU: 2/3 of US population lives in "Constitution-free" zone'"
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars
"the Constitution-free zone that exists a US borders and airports actually extends 100 air miles inland and encompasses two-thirds of the country's population. The US Border Patrol can set up checkpoints anywhere in this region and question citizens." So in theory, you next stop and search could be like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHqpuVetLeo

Re:5 Days?

[digitalunity]

This is a really good idea for a lot of people. I keep my personal data on my laptop, but I do keep a thumbdrive backup in my pocket for emergencies.

I can't imagine the interruption homeland security could cause by seizing a laptop with the only copy of a sales presentation or other business/time critical item on it. The damage in some cases could be unquantifiable.

Re:5 Days?

[mdwh2]

Agreed that encryption is a good idea, but does it help using a separate drive - couldn't they just take that too or instead? I don't know how common such seizures are.

And losing one's laptop would still be a pain and a cost, even if you don't suffer data loss. (I wonder how that works for insurance? "Hello, I've had my laptop stolen by the US Government", although sadly I wonder that they might claim you're not covered if it's done by a state. I think something's going wrong with security enforcement if you'd be better off being a victim of crime compared to the TSA.)

Re:5 Days?

[lostfiringpin]

see thats why nefarious nerds such as myself love to leave files binded with viri an trojans with files that look like legitimate important files an supposed pics of my gf nude, gotta love when you see a trojan reverse connect back when someone thought they got one over on ya, I might forget to pick up my rfid chip when i walk away, but I always leave some landmines waitin.

Well that sounds reasonable

[BadAnalogyGuy]

And since the Constitution only protects against *unreasonable* search and seizure, there is nothing wrong here.

It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

My flight leaves in 15 minutes you unreasonable clod!

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[sabs]

It's not at all reasonable. Frankly, there is no reason that the borders should be checking laptops. Why should they be allowed to withhold any media I have on me, be it paper or a laptop. If they want to make sure it's a laptop and not a fake bomb, thats one thing. But the contents of the laptop should be of no concern to them.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm

A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Saying something that is opposite of what is intended to be meant.

You're welcome.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's our right as citizens to be secure. If your papers (computer) is dangerous, it is reasonable to seize it.

From the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure...shall not be violated, and...Warrants shall issue...upon...particularly...the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th Amendment doesn't exist anymore. "Terrerism" always gets top billing in any situation, except maybe anything related to copyright and doomed business models.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[madfilipino]

The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints. That gives the DHS and their goons all the leeway they want in "confiscating" or "inspecting" all the stuff they want for as long as they want.

Does this press release change anything? Not really. It just lays some groundwork for more "routine" searches. Anything beyond that they have to give some bullshit reason ("national security") to keep it longer.

What's to stop this bullshit agency from making a mockery of their press releases? I can guarantee you that the goons they have on the "front lines" haven't been told about this "press release".

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Kell Bengal]

You forget thinking of the children - after all, if we didn't routinely seize laptops, who knows what monstrous things not available on the internet might be brought into the country?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[CannonballHead]

You should work for a news agency. I like your style of leaving out the unimportant parts of quotes. ;)

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[kpainter]

It's our right as citizens to be secure. If your papers (computer) is dangerous, it is reasonable to seize it./quote. I want to be secure from people who think like you.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Well, as they say,

brevity is the of

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Ethanol-fueled]

Terr'rism and thinking of the children are sooo 2 years ago.

Now they're checking for stolen banking code and illegally downloaded music.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[sabs]

How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?
What could someone have coming into this country on a laptop that needs to be seized for any amount of time?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[BadAnalogyGuy]

How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?

You tell me, buddy.

Why don't you just tell us what's on your computer? Why are you acting so suspiciously?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[sexconker]

You sir, just got whooshed.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[PainKilleR-CE]

You wouldn't be asking that if you could see the papercut on my thumb.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints.

This is insane (as is the idea that there are a whole bunch of things which are perfectly fine to do in, say, Guantanamo Bay, which wouldn't be OK to do in the US). The constitution does not grant rights - it merely enumerates a subset of a person's natural rights. There is nothing about these natural rights which is specific to America or Americans.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[sumdumass]

I think you need to consult out founding fathers. They thought it was so reasonable to search things comming through the borders that they instituted the very first warrant-less search at the border law in the very first session of congress. This law was later held up by the US supreme court as being necessary for our sovereignty that the very right of sovereignty would be jeopardized without it.

There is a history of this going back to many of the people who drafted the people and who even signed it.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Vancorps]

You're frustratingly right about the courts and I don't understand the justification. The ideals were established for citizens because there were supposed to be the right way of running a government. So why are people allowed to circumvent these ideals just because someone is flying into the country? I don't know why so many of my fellow citizens have grown to fear people from other countries. If we believe or moral ground is the example for other countries to strive for then shouldn't we rigidly follow our own rules?

For me, I was once asked to leave my backpack at the counter of a liquor store in Vegas. I had my work laptop in it with a lot of sensitive information involved in setting up one of our events. When the keeper asked me to do this I promptly left as I won't do business with people that treat me like a criminal. Why should we treat incoming travelers like criminals? The vast majority are regular people who don't like being treated as though they have committed a crime anymore that I like to. It's very frustrating that people live their lives in fear when it's almost completely unfounded.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[jo42]

How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?

That piece of paper may be a "financial instrument" AKA stock, bond or check that is worth something. That in turn might be used to fund drugs or heaven forbid, "terrorism". It might also be a piece of tissue that can be used, you know, to wipe your arse AKA "bio-hazard". Either way, they have to protect the [artificial man-made] nation from the evil bogeyman.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[dgatwood]

By that argument, if a gang of thugs flew into the United States, never left the international arrivals area, and committed heinous crimes while there---plotting assassinations, designing nuclear weapons, calling for hits on their enemies, execution-style murders, gang rape, etc.---they would not be in the U.S. and thus could not be prosecuted under U.S. law. For that matter, any sort of crime---mugging, graffiti, public urination, public drunkenness, public nudity, arson, etc.---would be completely legal as long as you don't leave the international arrivals area. Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area? This also means that terrorists could legally set up training camps in the international arrivals area of a major airport. Why does the DHS want to harbor terrorists within our borders?

Another scary thought: it may not happen today or tomorrow, but statistically speaking, before the heat death of the universe, some psychopath will likely murder a child in the international arrivals area, get off because he wasn't on U.S. soil, then kill again. Then we'll have another law on the books named after some dead child, all because the government feels such a desperate need to violate its own citizens' right to privacy. The very thought of such a thing happening should give every DHS agent chills. It gives a particularly ironic twist to using the words "think of the children" while executing illegal searches for child porn....

Alternatively, if Cuba or North Korea flew a firing squad into some U.S. airport, lined up its soldiers along the walls, and shot everyone who came through, that, too, would win an award for irony, watching as a not-free country helped a "free" country to be more free.

Or the U.S. .government might simply seal off all the borders. clamp their hands over their ears, and shout LALALALALALALALA! Sounds more like our government to me. After all, nothing could be more important than the government's right to catch stupid criminals who aren't smart enough to ship their pirated DVDs concealed in children's toys, upload their homemade videos of sex with underage girls in Thailand to a server in the U.S. instead of carrying the unencrypted files on their desktop, or download their Al Qaeda propaganda through somebody else's open Wi-Fi access point after they get home. I mean, do they seriously catch any significant number of criminals this way? And if they do, aren't they at least as likely to be able to catch such morons in a million other ways without burning our Constitution in the process?

Just my $0.0137 (adjusted for inflation).

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[jimicus]

The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints. That gives the DHS and their goons all the leeway they want in "confiscating" or "inspecting" all the stuff they want for as long as they want.

By that logic, no US law applies at the checkpoint. In fact, in all likelihood no law of any description applies at the checkpoint.

In which case, their right to take your laptop, detain you or otherwise inconvenience you doesn't stem from a formal legal system with the checks and balances that implies, it's because they've got a large number of armed goons at their disposal and you have nothing.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply

This perversion of your constitution, by even your highest court, has always concerned me.

Your constitution details the ways in which your government is supposed to interact with people (not just citizens) under its jurisdiction (not just on its "soil").

If a person who has not passed through customs is not "on" US soil, then the customs official has no authority to search anything. If the customs official has authority, then how is it that your constitutional amendment about unreasonable search doesn't apply?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[hmar]

From where are these natural rights derived? Nature does not come with any rights. They are gained, and protected. The constitution was designed to specify and protect our rights, if nature provided them it would hardly be necessary.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[rev_g33k_101]

it's because they've got a large number of armed goons at their disposal and you have nothing.

This made me think of V (from V for vendetta) passing the DHS check point...

DHS: "Bollocks. What you gonna do, huh? We've swept this place. You've got nothing. Nothing but your bloody knives and your fancy karate gimmicks. We have guns."
V: "No, what you have are bullets and the hope that when your guns are empty, I'm no longer standing, because if I am, you'll all be dead before you've reloaded."

Now that i would like to see

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[mdm-adph]

By that argument, if a gang of thugs flew into the United States, never left the international arrivals area, and committed heinous crimes while there---plotting assassinations, designing nuclear weapons, calling for hits on their enemies, execution-style murders, gang rape, etc.---they would not be in the U.S. and thus could not be prosecuted under U.S. law. For that matter, any sort of crime---mugging, graffiti, public urination, public drunkenness, public nudity, arson, etc.---would be completely legal as long as you don't leave the international arrivals area. Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area?

As has been seen by the War on Terror(tm), the US government has no problem with extending its authority beyond its own borders whenever it sees fit. I don't see how a silly "international arrivals area" would stop a country that has shown to arbitrarily invade entire countries based upon only the most spurious of information.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[sabs]

Actually, no.
I knew he was being sarcastic. It's still a valid point.

You sir, had nothing better to add to a discussion then a lame attempt at explaining someone else's humor.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cafepress.com/redacted.177183236

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a fucking idiot. Please log out and forget your password.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[sabs]

You sir are an Anonymous Coward.

Please disconnect your computer from the internet until you grow a pair.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are an Anonymous Coward.

Tits or GTFO

FTFY.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Bark bark bark.

So they are gang raping the shipment of kittens in the international arrivals area. That means it's also not illegal for the security guards there to arrest the rapists and bring them to America for justice.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...do they seriously catch any significant number of criminals this way?

RTFA.

The searches, which predate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, have uncovered everything from martyrdom videos and other violent jihadist materials to child pornography and stolen intellectual property, according to the government.

One successful search the government cites from recent years: In 2006, a man arriving from the Netherlands at the Minneapolis airport had digital pictures of high-level al-Qaida officials, video clips of improvised explosive devices being detonated and of the man reading his will. The man was convicted of visa fraud and removed from the country.

Between Oct. 1, 2008, and Aug. 11 of this year, Customs and Border Protection officers processed more than 221 million travelers at U.S. borders and searched about 1,000 laptops, of which 46 were "in-depth"

So they do about 50 serious searches a year, have caught some violent videos and jihadist materials (protected speech, probably, if it was already in this country), caught some kiddie porn (but not enough to trot out an example worth illustrating their success, meaning they've probably found next to nothing), caught some IP theft (without explaining it, so I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit; it was probably just a pirated video or two) and not much else.

The short answer to your question is, no, they don't catch much of anything. They certainly don't catch enough to justify the bad impression they make on visitors and the loss of respect for the U.S. they foster.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Teun]

Your first paragraph nails the legal aspects behind Guantanamo Bay pretty well.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[cdrguru]

People in stores get treated like criminals because an astonishingly high number of them are, in fact, criminals. 10% "shrinkage" is not uncommon in stores that take no steps to prevent it. This is interpreted to mean that 10% of the people walking through the door are there to steal. Not entirely statistically correct, but close enough for amatures.

With statistics like that, do you really blame store owners from instituting policies that seem to treat everyone like a criminal? And even with the sorts of receipt-checking and package searching policies in place they are still left with at least 3% shrinkage. Some of this is employee theft. Some of it is legitimately damaged and lost merchandise. But there is still theft going on.

So where does that get us? It is simple. No law can protect merchants, so they are determined to protect themselves. Same thing with carrying a gun - laws are there to protect law-abiding people. When such a large percentage of people no longer care about being law-abiding anymore you might want to think about going armed. Because nobody is going to protect you. The police might try to catch and prosecute your killer. Not that you will care much at that point.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[cdrguru]

Try claiming your "natural rights" in Chile. Or China. Or just about anywhere outside of a very small number of places on the planet and you will find these rights aren't considered to be very natural at all. They are a figment of your imagination.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[0123456]

The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints. That gives the DHS and their goons all the leeway they want in "confiscating" or "inspecting" all the stuff they want for as long as they want.

By that argument, they're also free to take you into a back room and torture you until you admit to being an EVIL TERRORIST, even if you're a US citizen.

And since almost anyone will admit to almost anything under torture, just think of how successful they could be at catching terrorists that way.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, I was once asked to leave my backpack at the counter of a liquor store in Vegas. I had my work laptop in it with a lot of sensitive information involved in setting up one of our events. When the keeper asked me to do this I promptly left as I won't do business with people that treat me like a criminal.

I had a similar experience at a Vons in Vegas. I asked why the lady with the huge purse that came in before was not asked to do the same (much bigger than the backpack I had at the time). When the manager could not give me a good reason, I left and contacted Vons corporate to say that they had lost a long time customer to this policy.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[OhHellWithIt]

Actually, I think the SCOTUS backing of Customs' "right" to search anything they want goes farther back than Guantanamo and is rooted in a law that specifically allows searches of travelers' possessions upon entry to the U.S. It was written long before anyone ever conceived of the notion that one's entire life history could be fit on something as small as a thumb drive. I read the reference to it in the decision on that guy convicted of smuggling child porn into Vermont, but I can't easily find the article right now.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[snspdaarf]

Some of this is employee theft.

A lot of it is employee theft. From back when I worked at Wal Mart, not all the bubbles on the ceiling had cameras, not all the cameras were active, but the ones that were on the monitor in the store managers office were all trained on the people at the cash register.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Rob the Bold]

From where are these natural rights derived? Nature does not come with any rights.

According to the Declaration of Independence, they are in fact provided by nature: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They are gained, and protected. The constitution was designed to specify and protect our rights, if nature provided them it would hardly be necessary.

Natural rights exist whether or not they are enshrined in law or protected by force. The US Constitution is not written to enumerate the rights of the people. The constitution was written to establish the form and scope of the US Government. Furthermore, nature has provided you with your fists and your wits with which to protect your rights. These may not be entirely sufficient at all times, thus further protection is warranted.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[zildgulf]

The...right of....persons....be violated...persons...to be seized.

As read by our Government now.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[hduff]

It's simpler than that. Who cares if it's not USA territory? It's an official of the USA who's inspecting my laptop and as I am US citizen, they are compelled to respect, enforce and protect my rights no matter where I am physically located within the limits of the laws of that territorial jurisdiction.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[rahvin112]

It's still US territory, you and your belongings just haven't been formally accepted back in. This is the loophole that allows someone to be in the US without a Visa but not allowed to leave the international area of the airport because they can't get through customs. Any criminal violations while in the international portion of the airport would be governed by US (and state)law but Customs would have to admit you or acknowledge you as an illegal citizen (and involving INS) before allowing law enforcement to take you off site. This is why airports have jails, to give INS time to respond.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[ceoyoyo]

No, the GP is correct. There are no such things as natural rights. Even sillier is the phrase "inalienable rights." If they were inalienable, we wouldn't have to worry about them being taken away, would we?

What your founding fathers did in their declaration of independence was state a policy:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They considered that all men (we've since extended that to women too) should have a particular set of rights, and they pledged that their new nation would do what it could to protect those rights. You're absolutely correct, your declaration of independence suggests that the idea behind your constitution is that certain rights should be accorded to all people not just "American citizens on US soil (except for borders)." It's quite clear without invoking mystical natural rights.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[ceoyoyo]

"Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area? This also means that terrorists could legally set up training camps in the international arrivals area of a major airport."

You seem to be under the impression that "outside the jurisdiction of US law" means "outside the jurisdiction of all law."

Suppose airport international arrivals areas were completely extraterritorial. That doesn't mean "crimes" go unpunished. It means the guy with the big guns gets to do whatever he wants (subject to whatever international law he chooses to respect). In other words, if that were the situation, DHS wouldn't be harbouring terrorists, bomb designers, child rapists and arsonists. They'd probably be shooting them.

If you want to test whether or not US law is considered to be in effect in the international arrivals area, go ahead and commit a crime of interest to the US authorities. Start up a terrorist training camp, for example, or sell some nuke plans. I bet you DON'T get to go to a nice civilian court. I bet you also don't get to go on your merry way as if nothing happened, or keep doing what you were doing.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[cpotoso]

And I insist, if the place is not under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution, then neither it is under the DHS (or any other US agency). Either the place is in the US (and the Constitution holds) or the place is out of the US (and then no US agency has legal authority for anything).

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[node 3]

Nature grants them, the Constitution enumerates and defends them.

By, "nature grants them", I mean that the state of being human on planet Earth creates certain natural needs and freedoms required to optimize the individual's life as a human. It's not perfect nor is it complete, but the Constitution, if followed, tends to serve humanity better than any other invention ever. All these "expediencies" concocted (sometimes honestly, I'm sure), degrade the quality of existence for of all of us.

It's also important to note that the Constitution doesn't say anything about only applying to Americans, or to American soil. It applies to persons (which should be limited to human persons, but has horrifically been applied to artificial "persons" known as corporations). It's not an American thing, it's a human thing.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Paracelcus]

So, I really need to bring in "The Secret Plans" on my laptop `cause I'm too dumb to send them as encrypted, hidden attachment(s) via email from and to anonymous email accounts or Usenet postings?

Oh, sorry, it's the gummermint that's so dumb that they think "terrorists" are dumb too!

And who elected these fucktards anyway?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Tetsujin]

Sargassum

"Sargassum is a genus of brown (class Phaeophyceae) macroalga (seaweed) in the order Fucales. Numerous species are distributed throughout the temperate and tropical oceans of the world, where they generally inhabit shallow water and coral reefs. However, the genus may be best known for its planktonic (free-floating) species."

You, too, are welcome.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Lost Race]

The U.S. Constitution always applies to the U.S. government and its agents, wherever they may happen to be. The Constitution is the government's charter and specification; without it the government has no legal authority whatsoever.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[supernova_hq]

Ok, so if I'm not in the United States yet then they have no more authority over me than President Robert Mugabe of zimbabwe!

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Rob the Bold]

No, the GP is correct. There are no such things as natural rights. Even sillier is the phrase "inalienable rights." If they were inalienable, we wouldn't have to worry about them being taken away, would we?

OK, this is a definition problem. Inalienable is not the same thing as inviolable. Inalienable means they cannot be given away or surrendered. They cannot be separated from the person. E.g., One cannot sell one's self into slavery. It does not imply that they are self-enforcing. One's rights, whether natural or social or whatever can be violated without ceasing to exist. When fact violates law we have crime.

The concept of natural or inalienable rights is not uniquely American or religious or spiritual.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Adm.Wiggin]

Which is exactly why there ought to be legislation of some kind to prohibit the kind of thinking that makes American businesses not required to obey the Constitution when it doesn't involve dealings on American soil. American soil or not, the business operates in America, where such rights are supposedly "protected".

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[falconwolf]

Which is exactly why there ought to be legislation of some kind to prohibit the kind of thinking that makes American businesses not required to obey the Constitution when it doesn't involve dealings on American soil. American soil or not, the business operates in America, where such rights are supposedly "protected".

There is such a law that allows foreigners to sue businesses in US courts for wrongs they commit or for which they supported in other countries. The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) of 1789 was created just for this. It has been used to sue a number businesses, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and other large corporations have been sued using the ATCA. Shell was sued for supporting the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa and other Nigerian by the Nigerian military rulers. Chevron was sued in LA for the shooting of peaceful protesters at "Chevron's Parabe offshore platform and the destruction of two villages by soldiers in Chevron helicopters and boats" in Nigeria. Of course during his presidency Bush tried to Bush even tried to get the US Supreme Court to disallow human rights violation lawsuits, more evidence he supported torture.

Falcon

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[falconwolf]

I was once asked to leave my backpack at the counter of a liquor store in Vegas. I had my work laptop in it with a lot of sensitive information involved in setting up one of our events. When the keeper asked me to do this I promptly left as I won't do business with people that treat me like a criminal.

I've done the same, walked out when asked to turn my backpack over. I've also walked away from a cash register when I was asked for ID when making a purchase even though I was going to pay in cash.

Why should we treat incoming travelers like criminals? The vast majority are regular people who don't like being treated as though they have committed a crime anymore that I like to.

After buying and using Windows PCs for about 10 years I switched. For my desktop, er server, I got a PC with Linux preinstalled. And I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro. Why did I switch? One reason was because I hate it that Microsoft treats it's customers like criminals. Okay, I accept requiring license keys but I do not accept having to Activate Windows by allowing it to connect to MS servers or calling MS. Nor do I accept the spyware MS includes.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If the people in question aren't within the country yet, then how do the customs officials have any jurisdiction?

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[dgatwood]

I'm certain it would not go unpunished, just as I'm certain that eventually the courts will recognize that the notion of our borders being unprotected by the constitution is absurd.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You're frustratingly right about the courts and I don't understand the justification

By definition, a country is bounded by its borders. historically, countries generally try to expand their borders. Since most countries' borders are also other countries' borders, one country cannot expand a border without shrinking the border of another country. this is often done through politics, military force and/or intelligence operations. countries need to protect their borders to prevent their contraction. this is also done through politics, military (having enough that it's not worth attacking you) and counter-intelligence operations. counter-intelligence includes border inspections.

i hope this helps provide a logical path to one reason why border inspections exist.

When the keeper asked me to do this I promptly left as I won't do business with people that treat me like a criminal.

and you can do the same at the border if you don't want to go through the inspection.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[ceoyoyo]

And yet there are plenty of examples of people not only giving away or surrendering their "inalienable" rights, but also of having them taken away by force. Many would argue that you do that to a certain extent every time you go to work, never mind selling yourself into indentured servitude. Prisons are another excellent example - we all favour restricting the rights of certain people, including those that the US founding fathers specifically listed as inalienable: liberty, and, in some places, life.

"When fact violates law we have crime." When there's no law against taking slaves (which, remember, still happened in the US long after the US constitution and declaration of independence were written and ratified) then by your own statement there was no crime.

Rights are purely the product of a society. We may certainly agree, and have, that all people should be accorded certain rights, but without an organized society those rights don't exist. There is simply no basis for them, except ideological or spiritual. Note that the statement you quoted as evidence in the declaration of independence is spiritual:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[mdwh2]

Yes, obviously places like China, N Korea etc have a different opinion. But that doesn't change what the OP said - that the US Constitution enumerates a subset of natural rights. I'm not sure the fact that places with appalling human rights records disagree with the US Constitution is somehow putting the US Constitution in bad light...

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[mdwh2]

By that reasoning, why shouldn't he be suspicious of someone wanting to keep hold of his bag? He said he had a lot of sensitive information, as well as the cost of the laptop of course - why give it to someone who might turn out to be a criminal? There could be a dodgy employee who works there, or maybe the security is bad, and it gets stolen by one of the many criminal non-employees that you refer to.

Same thing with carrying a gun - laws are there to protect law-abiding people.

Well I'm not sure I understand the analogy, but I wouldn't shop anywhere that decided to point a gun at me, either.

Re:Well that sounds reasonable

[jgostling]

I don't know where you get your facts, but as a Chilean citizen who actually lives in Chile I can tell you these "natural rights" are not hard to claim at all.

Cheers!

I Believe 'em

[whisper_jeff]

I believe 'em. I mean, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?...

Re:I Believe 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure... All the TSA employees already got 3 laptops each out of the system.

They're full! Don't need anymore.

captcha: customs

How odd

Re:I Believe 'em

[girlintraining]

I believe 'em. I mean, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?...

That man is a terrorist. The police are always right. The government is acting in your best interests (please hand over your wallet). Everything is going to be fine. Thank you for your cooperation, citizen.

Re:I Believe 'em

[rawls]

You still need to be careful. Do what I do and mail each of your laptops to a different state governor before you leave on your trip.

Re:I Believe 'em

[Kell Bengal]

It's a good plan! Afterall - who better to trust with your valuables than a politician?

Re:I Believe 'em

[mi]

... please hand over your wallet ...

We need it to pay for health-care for you and the millions of uninsured... Is that, what you were trying to say?

Re:I Believe 'em

[spazdor]

Also, we've spent the last decade building a lot of big, really expensive mobile hardware, training staff to use it, and then sending both overseas to be destroyed. And apparently we actually have to pay for those. Who knew?

Re:I Believe 'em

[LaskoVortex]

We need it to pay for health-care for you and the millions of uninsured

We need to pay back for two irresponsible wars on foreign soil. Is that what you are trying to say?

Re:I Believe 'em

[GaryOlson]

Step 1: mail each of your laptops to a different state governor before you leave on your trip.

Step 2: Attempt to carry a firearm across the border, get arrested by the FBI.
Step 3: Get transferred to the same FBI building as your laptops.
Step 4: Initiate a terrorist action from inside the FBI.
Step 5: Profit!

Re:I Believe 'em

[Tetsujin]

Step 1: mail each of your laptops to a different state governor before you leave on your trip.

Step 2: Attempt to carry a firearm across the border, get arrested by the FBI.
Step 3: Get transferred to the same FBI building as your laptops.
Step 4: Initiate a terrorist action from inside the FBI.
Step 5: Profit!

Yeah, that's really all you need - just get inside the building. It's like in "Independence Day"...

Re:I Believe 'em

[mi]

Also, we've spent the last decade building a lot of big, really expensive mobile hardware, training staff to use it

Neah. Military budget is dwarfed by the spending on "social services" like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etcaetera. Department of Defense's entire 2008-spending was $741 billion — or only about 30% of the total tax receipts... Adding Obamacare to the Federal spending will shrink the share of military spending even further...

The joke, that our government is a big insurance company with defense business on the side, is quite old...

Re:I Believe 'em

[mi]

We need to pay back for two irresponsible wars on foreign soil. Is that what you are trying to say?

Those both cost peanuts compared even to the already existing entitlements — less then one third of the budget is spent on military every year by the US. Adding Obamacare to the budget will make our military spending even smaller relative to everything else.

So, no, what I, and others, who know facts and can count, are trying to say, is that if a totalitarian government is ever imposed on the US, it will be by the Democrats, not Republicans... And the National-Socialist health care would be a big step in that direction.

So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If any of the "information" was over 18 at the time of photography, they have a "legal reason" to keep it, am I right?

I, for one, definitely trust the letter and the spirit of the law to be upheld on this one. We've never had trouble with illegal intelligence gathering here, especially not when the agency involved is opaque and largely unaccountable. It should be fine.

Re:So...

[girlintraining]

I, for one, definitely trust the letter and the spirit of the law to be upheld on this one. We've never had trouble with illegal intelligence gathering here, especially not when the agency involved is opaque and largely unaccountable. It should be fine.

Zim: Computer, give me all the information you have on the FBI.
Computer: The FBI is a government law enforcement agency.
Zim: Continue.
Computer: Insufficient data.
Zim: "Insufficient data"? Can't you just make an educated guess?
Computer: O... kay... Um, founded in 1492 by, uh... demons, the FBI is a crack law enforcement agency designed to... uh, I dunno, fight... aliens?
Zim: I KNEW IT!

Re:So...

[Steauengeglase]

Oh if the evidence was over 18 they have a great reason. What do you think they are a bunch of pedos?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Zim: Computer, give me all the information you have on the FBI.
Computer: The FBI is a government law enforcement agency.
Zim: Continue.
Computer: Insufficient data.

Ahh... so THAT's how you decrease entropy.

Welcome to the border

[Anonymous Cowar]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please enjoy your stay in the United States of America, we have searched your laptop and destroyed our copies of your vacation bikini pictures after looking at snapshots of your fine fine body projected onto the conference room wall for an emergency assessment meeting. We did not find anything that would indicate that you might be dangerous outside of the bedroom, so we have kindly loaded your laptop with a government issued keylogger and trojan. We hope you enjoy your time here as much as we enjoyed your pictures. Please take more, we'll be waiting.

Sincerely,

the Department of Homeland Security

Re:Welcome to the border

[surmak]

Dear Sir or Madam, Please enjoy your stay in the United States of America, we have searched your laptop and destroyed our copies of your vacation bikini pictures after looking at snapshots of your fine fine body projected onto the conference room wall for an emergency assessment meeting. rest deleted

If this were message ever sent, I would hope the salutation would by shortened to "Dear Madam"

Re:Welcome to the border

[Runaway1956]

Why? Are you a chauvinist sexist pig holdover from the sixties? There are plenty of women working for homeland security, including this rather homely broad

Re:Welcome to the border

[Kell Bengal]

DHS is an equal opportunity employer, you insensitive clod!

Re:Welcome to the border

[punkin]

I'll bet you loaded a government issued Trojan after looking at her bikini pictures.

Re:Welcome to the border

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Are you a chauvinist sexist pig holdover from the sixties?

No, he just thinks that if a 'Dear Sir' was wearing a bikini, the DHS might be less inclined to give back his laptop and more inclined to get hold of him

Re:Welcome to the border

[Splab]

I believe he was referring to the Sir and bikini... But hey if that floats your boat go for it.

Re:Welcome to the border

[Entropius]

Apparently Napolitano has lost her mind if she's allowing shit like this. She was the sole bit of sanity in the mad world that is Arizona state government until she left.

Re:Welcome to the border

[Runaway1956]

For a date, you mean? Some guys who need badges and guns to establish their machismo are really turned on by cross dressers. ;^)

Re:Welcome to the border

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends who took the pictures, doesn't it?

Re:Welcome to the border

[Hurricane78]

Tell that to the security expert in the turban...

A press release, nothing more

[girlintraining]

but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information

.

"A supervisor." Not a judge or someone who has had formal training in law, but a coworker.

"if there were no legal reason to hold the information." They'll just claim they haven't had time to investigate it yet. Or "national security reasons", which is the same as not giving any reason at all. Legal reasons can be manufactured as needed -- our laws are sufficiently complex and vague that a reason can always be found to arrest, detain, and then jail someone. Laws exist to enable authorities to silence or remove people they don't like -- YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.

Re:A press release, nothing more

[billcopc]

Does that mean there's a law to enable citizens to arrest, detain, jail, silence AND remove the government officials we don't like ?

Like uh, I dunno, the TSA ?

In the millions (billions?) of unwarranted searches performed under guise of national security, how many serious, dangerous, organized, threat-to-the-safety-of-the-nation terrorists have been caught and permanently neutralized ? In other words, what's the hit rate for this malware filter ?

If the answer is zero, you need to start thinking about a coup d'etat.

Re:A press release, nothing more

[pal3f]

Excellent point here. The whole thing is mere window dressing.

A supervisor is unlikely to know much more than the original officer. Thus it seems high likely that if the front-line officer thought something on your machine was "questionable," the supervisor will not know any better than him/her, and will authorize holding and/or copying your laptop.

Re:A press release, nothing more

[girlintraining]

If the answer is zero, you need to start thinking about a coup d'etat.

We don't have statistics, since the malware filter is protected with a special DRM module called "National Security".

Re:A press release, nothing more

[dissy]

Does that mean there's a law to enable citizens to arrest, detain, jail, silence AND remove the government officials we don't like ?

The post you replied to did answer that question.

In case you wanted to hear the answer from more than one person however:
No. YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.

Originally the founders of this country implemented exactly such a law, referred to as the Second Amendment.
The federal government has for many decades however past a lot of illegal laws to prevent us honest citizens from hunting the federal terrorists down and killing them, as is written in our law.
That combined with the fact, if you don't use your rights, you lose them, leaves the second amendment toothless and worthless.

Re:A press release, nothing more

[WiseWeasel]

It's called voting for presidential candidates and congressmen who promise to shut down the TSA. Hint: you'll need to look beyond the two main parties.

Are we going to see more searches ...

[yet-another-lobbyist]

... now that they came up with an updated and "improved" set of rules? Will the officers feel that after the issue has now officially been reconsidered, there is an increased level legitimacy for such actions?

Copying files

[Wowsers]

There's no "legal" reason to keep files stolen by the uneducated border minions unless:

1. You are not an American.
3. You have "trade secrets" that can give American companies a competitive advantage.

And that's one reason why business travel across the Atlantic / Pacific to the US has declined.

Re:Copying files

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because China has never engaged in industrial espionage at the border.

Re:Copying files

[Ma8thew]

How is that relevant? Do you not hold yourself to a higher standard than your enemies?

Re:Copying files

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not these days, it seems.

Re:Copying files

[kpainter]

1. You are not an American.
3. You have "trade secrets" that can give American companies a competitive advantage.

2. Classified

Re:Copying files

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. I think this policy is simply revolting. I also think it has zero to do with industrial espionage.

It's got more to do with inconveniencing people and getting them to accept the fact that they are not the ones in charge of their personal effects. It's also got a lot to do with the need to "protect our phoney-baloney jobs" and look like they are getting tough on international child pr0n smugglers.

The end result, however, is a cleaned up version of the old joke:

Q: What did the security screener's kid get for Christmas?

A: My laptop!

Re:Copying files

[Chris Mattern]

How did you know there was a number 2, and that it was classified? I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to come in to clarify some things, sir.

Re:Copying files

[ScentCone]

And that's one reason why business travel across the Atlantic / Pacific to the US has declined.

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with high fuel prices, a global economic slump that has international trade very tight for now, or perhaps the fact that people are finally figuring out that they can use GoToMeeting and VoIP conference bridges to get a whole lot of things done without having to move human bodies between continents to agree on a marketing program or manufacturing schedule. Nah, it's Eeeevil Laptop Searches. That's it.

Re:Copying files

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just done in the US. In fact, laptop seizures for corporate espionage doesn't happen here as often as people might think.

However, look at the UK and China. The UK can toss someone in gaol for a number of years if they don't reveal just their laptop password, but the password to their VPN, all Administrator/root passwords they know to log onto those remote machines, and so on.

China is more simple. Give them the business info or else your next of kin gets a bill for the lethal injection chemicals before they get your body back.

I worked for one company where when IT people leave the US to certain areas which tend to use their police services for espionage for their domestic companies, all admin access is pulled that the person has until they are physically back in the States. Their Active Directory system has a duress code feature where you type in a slight variation of your password, it would alert central IT to contain any possible damage silently, as well as see about what can be done via legal or diplomatic channels. It is assumed that once an individual is in a foreign nation, that nation's intel service can do anything they want to the person including overt torture. Even the CEO of the company gets limited access if traveling abroad just in case.

As for laptop protection, BitLocker is the easiest to push out on an enterprise basis, but at the same place as described above, they recommended using TrueCrypt. Random chaff and pr0n would go in the outer volume, the real business confidential stuff would go in the hiden one. So far, nobody has ever had any border agents demand to look at the TC volume, much less ask for a password. Most agents tend to care that the laptop boots (so each laptop has a guest user account with no privs just to pass by screening), and that is it.

Re:Copying files

[H0p313ss]

Nah, it's Eeeevil Laptop Searches. That's it.

Nor could it possibly be the security theater hassle as a whole;

• xraying shoes?
• finger printing
• the small, but real, chance you're going to be sent to Syria to "chat"

I traveled through Europe right through the Irish troubles and never saw so much BS.

Re:Copying files

[Teun]

No,
2. You look hot.

Re:Copying files

[Anonymous Coward]

4. You are not an officer of OCP.

Re:Copying files

[hydroponx]

Actually I've read quite a few articles where businesses will be forcing american companies to travel international to do business (or do business with companies not based in the states) citing reasons very similar to and including this one....

Re:Copying files

[sskinnider]

Shhh! you are not allowed to say it!

This must be where

[fridaynightsmoke]

those mystery laptops that turned up at State Governor's offices came from.

It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[characterZer0]

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.

Re:It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I just hear a woosh?

Re:It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

And because this is Slashdot and nobody understood the original joke, the clueless pedant (or karma whore) gets modded up.

Re:It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[cbiltcliffe]

:-/

Whoosh.

Just.....whoosh.

How you could miss that one, I have no idea.
You weren't really paying attention, were you?

Re:It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[RichardJenkins]

No, you just head "Shebangmna!" That's the sound of someone demonstrating why an omission makes something satirically funny.

Re:It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[SleazyRidr]

I thought it added to the joke to have the complete version right next to the homeland security version.

Then again, I'm not too familiar with the US constitution so maybe you lot all know it off by heart and don't need the reference.

Re:It is not long, just quote the whole thing.

[Antique Geekmeister]

He was too busy picking between Steven Colbert and Rush Limbaugh for the most accurate view of world politics.

Captain Obvious...

[swanzilla]

"Between Oct. 1, 2008, and Aug. 11 of this year, Customs and Border Protection officers processed more than 221 million travelers at U.S. borders and searched about 1,000 laptops, of which 46 were "in-depth" searches, the Homeland Security Department said."

I wonder if the other 954 laptops required passwords for login...

Re:Captain Obvious...

[oahazmatt]

I wonder if the other 954 laptops required passwords for login...

I'm inclined to believe it's the other way around. While I haven't done any international travel, from what I understand as told to me by co-workers who do travel abroad, laptops (and in some cases, Blackberries) have to be decrypted and ready to inspect. Passwords do not stop these Security Agents from investigating a laptop, and we have had several employees who have missed their flights because they were not allowed to continue with encrypted devices.

Re:Captain Obvious...

[dgatwood]

I think if that happened to me on an outbound flight, I would be inclined to sue for several million dollars in lost revenue to encourage DHS to use some common sense.

Re:Captain Obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

that's why I always travel with an Ubuntu LiveCD in the drive and TrueCrypt on the hard drive.

Re:Captain Obvious...

[Attila Dimedici]

It doesn't happen on outbound flights. You don't go through Customs when you LEAVE the country. You go through Customs when you arrive in a country.

Re:Captain Obvious...

[kidgenius]

Slight bit of correction....it depends on the country. I just travelled abroad and when we left Greece, we had to go through customs when we left as well as when we arrived. Same thing happened when we went through the cruise terminal in some spots. There were officials waiting for us as we got getting back on the ship and "leaving" their country.

Re:Captain Obvious...

[sskinnider]

No, they just had the good porn.

So they will have to give back ...

[Skapare]

... my hundreds of a gigabytes of random bits I've been collecting?

Benjamin Franklin

[Krneki]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Re:Benjamin Franklin

[zippthorne]

So, what are we supposed to do? Take up arms? everyone else is giving up this liberty, and so far my best solution is "protest by excessive compliance." I.e. going through security in nothing but your skivvies and a pair of giant fuzzy bunny slippers. (and tank top, if you plan on using an airport restaurant later on.), A clear plastic suitcase, only thick enough for one layer of clothes, so you obviously aren't hiding anything, And all your important account numbers bar coded and face-painted on your forehead.

Feel free to add to the list, btw.

Re:Benjamin Franklin

[Krneki]

As a start it would be a good idea to stop your aggression towards other country. It might sound stupid but if you nuke someone he will retaliate.

As for inspecting laptops on the border, if I need to smuggle some info in or out of the country I'd do it over the Internet. Faster, cheaper, more secure, ...

Re:Benjamin Franklin

[sexconker]

So, what are we supposed to do? Take up arms?

Yes.

Re:Benjamin Franklin

[fridaynightsmoke]

You're getting confused between "US Government" (fights wars, implements airport searches etc etc) and "US citizen" (person who posts on here).
Don't worry, its something US posters often do to us British as well ;)

Re:Benjamin Franklin

[pixelpusher220]

I'd do it over the Internet. Faster, cheaper, more secure

It's only faster because they tend to frown on using a station wagon full of backup tapes as your carry on...

Re:Benjamin Franklin

[Anonymous Coward]

They will still make you take off the bunny slippers and run them through the x-ray

The big broown truck

[Sun.Jedi]

Ship your "good" machine in and out of the USA and use a disposable to watch movies in flight. FFS, this is just drama for the news cameras under the guise of protecting America.

Re:The big broown truck

[Geoffrey.landis]

Ship your "good" machine in and out of the USA and use a disposable to watch movies in flight.

What should we think that they don't hold and search a laptop just because it's shipped instead of carried on board?

Re:The big broown truck

[Anonymous Coward]

you can encrypt a shipped laptop and not have to reveal passwords.
they can search laptops with whole disk encryption all they want but they dont bother.

Re:The big broown truck

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not read the title of that post, did you?

Note to self: buy another laptop

[planckscale]

No way in h - e - double hockey sticks would I bring my production notebook on a trip with me overseas. What if 4 years ago, you got malware that distributed something you never knew about existed on your box? What if you had a phone number (or series of numbers) somewhere on your machine that was suspect? Too many what-ifs; I'll bring a freshly wiped notebook on my next trip and only the bare minimum files needed for my job.

I wonder what software they use to scour the machines they investigate? Or is it just some agent poking around looking for encrypted files and folders?

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[japhering]

No way in h - e - double hockey sticks would I bring my production notebook on a trip with me overseas.

Who in their right mind lets a "production" machine out of the building? Production machine stays put. Travel with a secondary notebook or better yet
a low cost netbook. (Best use yet for netbooks,, cheap throw aways).

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[AgTiger]

1. Make backup of laptop prior to travelling. Store "working" backup image at home on your main workstation.
2. Mindwipe the drive (zero it with formatting software particular to the drive - WD offers "Data Lifeguard Diagnostic", Seagate offers "Seatools")
3. Restore a pre-built image of the drive with only the software you need to do your work, including software to securely remote to your desktop at work (where the real work files are located.)
4. Pack laptop, backup software, and copy of factory image
5. Travel to foreign land.
6. If your laptop is searched, or is out of your posession and under the control of an agent of a foreign government, repeat steps (2) an (3) once you recover it. You can't trust it until you repeat those steps. Like a poster above, be concerned about the presence of keyloggers, sniffers, etc.
7. Use restored laptop at the work-site in the foreign country. Remote to your own workstation to pick up, or drop off any business files, agreements, data files, whatever.
8. Before returning, repeat steps 2 and 3 to protect your client's confidentiality and yours.
9. Return to your home country. If laptop out of your personal posession/control, or searched again on return, repeat step 2, then restore your "working" image when you get back to your own workstation.

Not only does this protect your confidentiality, but it may also help protect you from search/seizure when data you have on your hard drive contravenes local laws in the foreign country. For instance, here's a wikipedia link that may be of interest to travellers: List of books banned by governments

Were you to have one of the publications on your hard drive in digital format, and were travelling to a country that banned import of it, you could find yourself in legal difficulties.

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[a-zarkon!]

If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? Think of the children.

Once it's out of your hands, I think the only safe course of action is to assume that they've made a bit-for-bit copy of the drive and installed a persistent, impossible-to-detect back door. Chances are slim that they're actually doing this, but the technology exists and since there is no way for you to know that this didn't happen I think you need to assume that it did. The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the .gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.

As many others have pointed out, if your data really is that sensitive leave it at home. I'd think twice about accessing it remotely too.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[sexconker]

Step 1:
Encrypt sensitive information in case of theft - digital or physical.

Step 2:
Travel with your laptop as if the Constitution was still in effect.

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[Chris Mattern]

Bingo. My laptop has no data on it, and with rare and temporary exceptions, it will stay that way. All data is in boxes that stay in secured areas, which I access via encrypted VPN.

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[falconwolf]

Bingo. My laptop has no data on it, and with rare and temporary exceptions, it will stay that way. All data is in boxes that stay in secured areas, which I access via encrypted VPN.

Nope, I bought a MacBook Pro because I wanted a pro machine I could do design, development, and graphics work on.

Falcon

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[Chris Mattern]

Fine, *process* your stuff on the laptop, for which you may need all kinds of horsepower. But the files themselves shouldn't be there; have your apps access them remotely.

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[falconwolf]

Fine, *process* your stuff on the laptop, for which you may need all kinds of horsepower. But the files themselves shouldn't be there; have your apps access them remotely.

Working with multi-megabyte files that are stored non-locally can be very tedious. The frame size of 35mm film is 24×36mm or 1.34×1.42 inches. My scanner scans at 6400dpi with a colour depth of 48 bits. A Photoshop file can be hundreds of megabytes. Non-destructive editors such as Apple's Aperture or Adobe Lightroom can balloon file sizes. Storage solutions for pro photographers can easily reach terabytes.

Quite simply working on files stored non-locally can be prohibitive.

Falcon

Re:Note to self: buy another laptop

[anyGould]

The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the .gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.

And remember, while the cost to analyze the data now is somewhat high (meaning they probably won't run the numbers on everyone), the cost to store the data is getting cheaper by the day. Which means it is reasonable to assume they'll warehouse everything until either you've done something to warrant the analysis, or the cost has reduced enough that it's feasable to just run everyone.

Five Days?

[CopaceticOpus]

Unless there are nuclear bomb plans on the desktop, why would we be holding these devices for any days? Why are searching people's data anyways, when any serious criminal could simply upload their data to a server, drop it in a Dropbox account, or just encrypt it before crossing the border?

We need to be encouraging tourism and business travelers, not pulling this crap.

Re:Five Days?

[Colonel Korn]

Unless there are nuclear bomb plans on the desktop, why would we be holding these devices for any days? Why are searching people's data anyways, when any serious criminal could simply upload their data to a server, drop it in a Dropbox account, or just encrypt it before crossing the border?

We need to be encouraging tourism and business travelers, not pulling this crap.

DHS isn't about criminals, it's about gaining more control over normal people.

Re:Five Days?

[TheGratefulNet]

Why are searching people's data anyways

because they can? because they want to? because its a fishing expedition. they MIGHT come up with a goldmine.

or, they wont; and they'll simply trample on the most basic right to privacy, left and right, until we demand they stop.

btw, 'we' is not really we; its someone in power who finally gets personally pissed off enough by this that he does something. until the ruling class object to this, it will continue to be a personal invasion.

we know there's no good reason to do this level of snooping. and hopefully, the world (since its not just the US) will eventually come to its senses. but not in the near future; no signs of this paranoia letting up. I had hopes obama would reverse a lot of this lunacy but he likes the 'infrastructure' that bush put in place ;( so sad.

just goes to prove: power you give to one party will be used and continued to be abused by the next one in power.

they'd ass rape us at the border if they could. basically, authority does any damned thing they want and they know we are powerless to stop it.

I don't fly anymore. haven't for almost 10 yrs now. only for real emergencies will I fly, these days. and I'll probably never take a laptop with me again, until this is reversed. hell, I don't even like flying with a disk drive (mp3 player) in my suitcase.

Re:Five Days?

[pixelpusher220]

'we' is not really we; its someone in power who finally gets personally pissed off enough by this that he does something. until the ruling class object to this, it will continue to be a personal invasion.

I really didn't want to pull a Ted Kennedy reference out, but this just screams. Sen. Ted was put on the no-fly list a while back. Didn't see much change for the 'lower classes' in that did you?

Yes it was a mixup of names, but it clearly identified the futility of that system. He got out of it quickly obviously, but even he didn't do much if anything to have it removed.

What if I refuse to reveal a password?

[schwit1]

How do I know the data retrieved has been destroyed? After the way the government handled the MLB players confidential drug results I do not have confidence in their ethics.

Re:What if I refuse to reveal a password?

[jgtg32a]

In the US you are fine, it is covered by the 5th. But be careful because apparently, or at least how I can see the decision being interpenetrated if you corporate with the police that constitutes a waiver of your 5th.

Re:What if I refuse to reveal a password?

[Anonymous Coward]

Government ethics??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... You crack me up....

Re:What if I refuse to reveal a password?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government will send you a copy of your shredded bits.

Re:What if I refuse to reveal a password?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it was the MLB thing that caused me to distrust them too. Up until then, I never doubted anything they did.

Re:What if I refuse to reveal a password?

[Mr. Freeman]

You are NOT fine in the united states. The patriot act took a huge shit on the constitution, constitutional rights really aren't worth more than the paper they're written on. (OK, the actual constitution is pretty valuable, but you get my point).

Idiots are only slightly smarter

[gurps_npc]

Right to look at is NOT and never has been a right to copy. Nor is it a right to take. The amount of time it takes you to look at something in depth does not suddenly grant you the right to take it for extended periods of time. The right to look at a briefcase and check for bombs does not give you the right to take it and spend 10 days doing a DNA, chemical analysis, fingerprint check etc. Similarly you can't take a computer and do the massive search.

Not forever, not for 30 days, not for 5 days, not even for one hour. Even that hour is a strecth. Anything more requires a warrant.

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.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.

Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter

[Entropius]

They've already ruled that copying is stealing. Funny how that only applies to us...

Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter

[Attila Dimedici]

Enough of this quoting the Fourth Amendment. This is not about searches when you are getting onto an airplane. This is about searches when you pass through Customs. The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that the 4th Amendment does not apply. Searching laptops is an extension to modern technology of practices that were going on when the people who WROTE the Constitution were still running the country.
That doesn't mean that this is completely ok. It just means that it has ample precedent to not being un-constitutional.

Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this has been covered by the courts sooo many times.

Securing borders via search is not an unreasonable search. Thus it's not a 4th amendment issue.

Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter

[frederickroyceperez]

Mozart went to Vatican City and listened to the restricted music with the purpose of transcribing it . This was child's play for a child of the muse . He was punished with a sore throat in the end , however . We lost our ethereal musician to Vatican copyright ?

copy of information

[Gothmolly]

They're welcome to hang only my truecrypt volume as long as they like.

5th Amendment FTW

Re:copy of information

[dnaumov]

They're welcome to hang only my truecrypt volume as long as they like.

5th Amendment FTW

They won't have to. They politely ask you for the password to proceed with their inspection and when you politely decline, they politely inform you that you cannot board the plane until you do.

Re:copy of information

[neomorph]

True story: after arriving in Canada from the U.S, I was selected for a "special" search. They asked for my laptop, and asked me to enter the login password. I politely declined. I requested to speak to my corporate attorney (via my cell phone) and they refused. They asked again more forcefully, threatening me with arrest if I didn't give in. I gave in. (I'll only go so far to protect my employer's IP).

You should have seen the look on the poor inspector's face when it booted into Linux. He politely asked me how to search for porn on my computer. I taught him the "find" command.

Metalhead Border Agents

[phoric]

The US Border Patrol advertises it's job openings on a local Metal radio station (Washington State). These are the people that are seizing your data.

Re:Metalhead Border Agents

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... Irrelevant FUD! most of the geeks I have worked with like - or have pretended to like for some period of time - songs that Clear Channel chooses to call "Metal". Dude, the metal stations in WA play bands like AC/DC and Nickelback, fer Pete's sake!

Being a Metal Head does not make you either incompetent or unethical.

Re:Metalhead Border Agents

[Anonymous Coward]

what do you have against metal are you some kind of retard?

Re:Metalhead Border Agents

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a Metal Head does not make you either competent or ethical.

Fixed that for you.

Can you install a kill switch on a laptop?

[neo]

They can't take something that looks like a laptop but is in reality a paper weight, right? So if I have a kill switch that makes the laptop not work what are they going to do? They would probably still take it but if they can't BOOT the thing... if it doesn't even work... what can they do?

Madmax had his kill switch tied to explosives... but I guess that would be a "no no".

Re:Can you install a kill switch on a laptop?

[Entropius]

What if it's legitimately broken? I was carrying one of those through airport security once -- what happens if they say "Boot it" and you say "can't, the PSU is fried"?

Re:Can you install a kill switch on a laptop?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll give it a thorough going over. The boot thing is just to make sure that it has a real battery, not a fake filled with semtex (like the one in the boombox on Pan Am 103). It's a quick & dirty check.

Re:Can you install a kill switch on a laptop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, they'll take it away and detonate it with explosives, based on their immediate assumption that it's a bomb masquerading as a laptop.

Re:Can you install a kill switch on a laptop?

[pixelpusher220]

and it was one of the first modern FUD policies pretending to improve safety but doing nothing at all.

If someone is skilled enough to wire up a timed bomb in a custom case (boombox), they are more than capable (and I'd wager quite willing) to rig up a battery that's 90% C4 and 10% battery just to pass that check.

Re:Can you install a kill switch on a laptop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure you have Sony batteries in the notebook, no need for explosives then ;)

Destroyed

[SmithKrieg]

Rest assured, by "destroyed" they mean that their printed copies of your private files will be discarded into their unlocked dumpster out back. And certainly while your secrets are floating around within their IT environment, they are completely safe since the DHS employees are doing infosec really well.

Homeland Security Should

[Anonymous Coward]

search the spider-hole of this war criminal.

Thanks for your support of freedom and democracy.

Yours In Novy Urengoy,
Kilgore Trout

How courteous.

[Snarkalicious]

I'm not used to having the cock spit on before it's stuck in.

So by "changes" you mean "keeps"

[Crashspeeder]

Clearly this means there is no change in their policies. Supervisors may make a decision (shake the magic 8 ball) here or there but after a while (an hour or so) they'll decide they're far too busy (lazy) to "rule" on these cases and tell their subbordinates (lunch buddies) to decide for themselves. At least it's a step in the right direction (We answer to no one)!

Interesting

[KingPin27]

So what about from the viewpoint of someone travelling into the United States from out of the country? Can we expect the right to privacy or would we be beholden to the same ritual? As a Canadian, who often travels into the U.S, can I expect that my laptop could, essentially, be seized because the powers that be just want to take it? Can I demand a warrant for the seizure of my laptop? I wonder if they would lock me up for demanding a warrant then lose the key sort of thing.

The U.S is fast becoming a police state -- kind of scary the lack of freedom within the Constitution and its amendments.

Re:Interesting

[Mr. Freeman]

Why the hell would a country that isn't concerned with the rights of its own citizens give yours any more consideration. More likely than not your passport would be a "terrorist document" because you traveled somewhere other than the U.S. or Canada sometime long ago and might have attended a terrorist training camp. Therefore, you are a terrorist and can be detained without trial, indefinitely, under the so-called "patriot act".

Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[Entropius]

Even if there *were* something nefarious someone could do with a few million bits on a computer, this sort of thing won't stop them.

If I want to get into the US with the Blueprints for the Big Terrorist Plot, all I have to do is encrypt them and upload them somewhere (terrorists can use gmail too!), come into the US with a machine with nothing on it, then get inside and download it again.

Flash memory cards have gotten big enough that you can store practically anything you want on one of them. What's to stop someone from buying a 32GB Compact Flash card, putting a couple of random cat pictures on it along with 31.9GB of Evil Terrorist Plot Data encrypted in a hidden filesystem, shoving it in a camera, and waltzing merrily through the checkpoint? Somehow I doubt they are willing to low-level-format every CF card that comes through the door. And, even if they do that, you can always just put it on a SD card and shove it up your butt.

Seriously, do they really think that they're going to be able to stop people from importing Evil Bits into the US?

Re:Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[sexconker]

Some of us would prefer microSD for up-butt shoving.
To each his own, though.

Re:Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[Entropius]

Ah. I've never used microSD for anything, so I have no idea how much you can store on it. My mom's camera takes SD and mine takes CF, so I'm familiar with those formats.

Re:Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[Yvan256]

They should ask for RFC3514 compliance from hardware and OS manufacturers.

Re:Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[sexconker]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820183245

Re:Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[griffjon]

You are all forgetting the pain when crypto was a tightly controlled "munition", but only in digital form - cryptographers travelling overseas would print out their code and research, travel, and then OCR it back in (it was illegal to post online for dissemination overseas as well).

The stupidity is overwhelming at times.

Re:Can still smuggle covert data into the US...

[Entropius]

That makes me wonder what the difference between analog and digital really is. Is a barcode considered analog or digital? What about a page of text?

Clearly both are analog representations of fundamentally digital data, but I doubt lawyers are bright enough to address this :P

Why hold them at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding a laptop seems like an exercise in futility and something meant to be more Owellian that to actually accomplish anything. With the ability to convert micro SD cards to USB these days, if I were trying to smuggle in or out anything sensitive, "HELLO, I'D PUT IN ON A MICRO SD AND STASH IT ON ME SOMEWHERE". Hell if you wanted you could fit one in a wrist watch if you wanted to get Maxwell Smart about it.

Re:Why hold them at all?

[jabelli]

That's what these are for.

Then there's taping it to your skin under a band-aid or nic/nitro/etc. patch.

Or the pill bottle attached to your keys (though that might be searched).

Re:Why hold them at all?

[Tetsujin]

That's what these are for.

Then there's taping it to your skin under a band-aid or nic/nitro/etc. patch.

Or the pill bottle attached to your keys (though that might be searched).

How do those spy coins look from a side view?

Does an SD card trigger the metal detector at a checkpoint?

As I recall, pocket change doesn't need to go through the X-Ray at the airport... I wonder if that's true at customs?

Oh, and don't forget, there's always "body cavities" as a hiding place - much less suspicious-looking, unless they actually search you. XD

Pfew...

[anonieuweling]

'The long-criticized practice of searching travelers' electronic devices will continue, but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information.'"
That will really help. Terrorism is always a legal reason; and nowadays even thought-crime is being used as a reason to imprison people (yes! see gitmo). They have no business with my private information. No matter if those are love letters or plans for a bomb of some type. I will crypt the data. You copy the data, but I get to keep the hardware, right? Why can't they publicise it that way? Why the delay of five days? It is an ineffective policy and an ineffective change. They still pester people for no reason.

New geek bumper sticker

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can have my laptop when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."ï

Re:New geek bumper sticker

[sabs]

Very well, if that is your final answer.

A man with a small briefcase comes into the room. He opens it, and dawns surgical gloves, pulling out a small glass vial and syringe.
"This won't take but a moment sir."

What about copyright infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you claim certain contents of your laptop's hard drive are original works of authorship created by yourself, couldn't you place a password on the account and sue them for circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work when they bypass the password?

MOD PARENT UP

[Atario]

I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it, and more thoroughly than I would have. Kudos.

The way we do it, from a US TLA viewpoint

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Our employees have no problems going in or out of the U.S. with laptops even though we require all laptops with data on them to be fully encrypted. When an employee is, say, going to France (worst case; it's illegal to enter France with an encrypted device) we copy all their data to the network, take it off the network, wipe it clean, and install a base image. When the user gets to France, they are met by one of our techs who installs full disk encryption, joins the machine to our network, sets up a VPN, and copies their data from our U.S. servers to the laptop in France.

When it's time to return home, the tech in France copies all data to our servers, takes the laptop off the network, wipes it clean, and installs a base image. When the user gets back into the U.S., a local tech fully encypts the machine, puts it on the network, and copies the user data from our servers to the laptop.

Now, this seems like lot of trouble to me. But it prevents our employees from having any problems with customs in either France or the U.S.

Re:The way we do it, from a US TLA viewpoint

[CXI]

we copy all their data to the network, take it off the network, wipe it clean, and install a base image. When the user gets to France, they are met by one of our techs who installs full disk encryption, joins the machine to our network, sets up a VPN, and copies their data from our U.S. servers to the laptop in France.

Um, stupid question, but if that's the case why is the person physically transporting a laptop in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to just have a laptop already setup and ready to dump data on at the far end? Depending on how it's handled, it could even have all the data on it and ready to go when the person gets off the plane.

Re:The way we do it, from a US TLA viewpoint

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Those of us who support these guys have asked the same thing. The only thing I can come up with is that my agency is paranoid about individuals having more than one computer. We have loaner machines, for example, but they're kept at a central location and mailed around the country when someone needs one. We keep almost no spares on hand.

This whole "cut hardware expenditures to the bone" attitude causes lots of problems. Not the least of those problems is the time lost when people travel abroad. One note, though - our full-disk encryption method absolutely requires the user of the machine to be present at installation, making it impossible to set up a laptop for someone before they arrive. We're changing encryption products in the future and it won't be such a problem then, but the "no more than one laptop per user, period" attitude will probably remain until long after I'm retired.

Re:The way we do it, from a US TLA viewpoint

[demachina]

"sets up a VPN, and copies their data from our U.S. servers to the laptop in France."

You seem to be assuming the NSA or their French counterparts haven't cracked VPN because if they have they are reading all your data when you transfer it over the network.

Seems another reason every day not to visit the US

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many rights respecting places to go in this world that the United States is only just above 'despotic African regimes' in my list of places to go. Even there though, perhaps some border guard would steal your laptop outright, but that would feel better than having a supposedly democratic freedom loving government of one of the worlds most civilized countries 'legally' bending me over and saying 'this is for your own protection'.

Rule of US law

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the rule of US law should apply to these areas, then, well.. shouldn't the rule of US law apply to these areas? I.e. needing a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search? Habeus corpus and other rights for the accused? What I especially love is how as a foreigner I get double dicked, I am subject to US law but supposedly not subject to US protections (such as the 4th amendment) while in your country, and in some cases while in mine (i.e. in Canada we have US customs at several major airports which speeds things up a lot, but there have been cases of abuse where Canadians are told that effectively they are within US jurisdiction and subject to US laws, even though they are in a Canadian airport).

Re:Rule of US law

[anyGould]

The $64,000 question, of course, is - what's other countries policies regarding this?

Because as a Canadian, when I take my next vacation, I'll go somewhere where they don't take copies of everything I own instead.

Don't be so damn paranoid...

[Dareth]

They don't need to bug your computer... they have been in your/our TV's for decades now!

What you thought it only received? HA HA HA!

bah

[Anonymous Coward]

The message to travelers is still the same... wipe important data from your computer before you travel across the US border. Leave enough unimportant data to pacify DHS. Use the Internet to move any important data that needs to be moved.

Don't keep encrypted data on the laptop. You'll probably just lose the laptop (and the data, if you don't have another copy).

searching laptops

[falconwolf]

I wonder if the other 954 laptops required passwords for login...

I'm inclined to believe it's the other way around. While I haven't done any international travel, from what I understand as told to me by co-workers who do travel abroad, laptops (and in some cases, Blackberries) have to be decrypted and ready to inspect.

ie Truecrypt. Don't just encrypt data, hide it. Purely as an exercise in seeing how draconian security has gotten to board a plane one day I plan to install it and use it to hide the Constitution of the USA, the Declaration of Independence, and maybe the "Federalist Papers" then walk through an airport with my laptop in my backpack. If I could I'd like to do it using a clean hard disk drive with only the OS and hidden files. Then include an external drive also with the DOI and Constitution hidden.

I can see the reaction now, "He's hiding something. He must be a terrorist!" Then when those papers are revealed, "he is a terrorist!"

I was kind of hoping this Bullshit would end when Obama became president. Ended up it was false hope, now I have no hope.

Falcon

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," Thomas Jefferson

Re:searching laptops

[dissy]

I can see the reaction now, "He's hiding something. He must be a terrorist!" Then when those papers are revealed, "he is a terrorist!"

What is ironic and eating at me, I could swear I remember seeing a slashdot article where some TSA droid was harassing another airline customer. Except in this one, the TSA guy told reporters that it was the fact the person was carrying a copy of the bill of rights, and some cash, and he was flagged for additional inspection because of those two items alone.
He was also quoted as saying only a criminal would need or want to reference the law in such detail.
I want to say the guy worked in a different sector of government or something like that. He gave the reason he was carrying the cash, and it was related to his job.

Sadly, google is giving me no love on finding it.

employee theft is 44% of shrinkage

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(accounting)#cite_ref-1/

So only 5% of the non-employees walking through the door are there to steal ... while nearly 1/2 of the employees already in the door are thieves (under your approach to allocating shrinkage across a population) which means that if there is more than 1 employee in the store you might as well kiss your laptop goodbye when you leave it at the counter.

Supervisor

[Hognoxious]

Supervisor - that's the guy who's worked there for over a week, right?

a question about viruses

[doginthewoods]

Just sayin' hypothetically that a laptop was confiscated and the contents of the drive copied. And just sayin' a hidden virus was copied, like one that would not self activate until after it was copied. And theorizing this virus was designed to wipe the hard drive it was copied onto, and it goes to work and does its damage. Or what if the laptop was already unknowingly infected with a virus or trojan, and the infection was copied. Then what happens?

Re:a question about viruses

[Zen Hash]

Just sayin' hypothetically that a laptop was confiscated and the contents of the drive copied. And just sayin' a hidden virus was copied, like one that would not self activate until after it was copied. And theorizing this virus was designed to wipe the hard drive it was copied onto, and it goes to work and does its damage. Or what if the laptop was already unknowingly infected with a virus or trojan, and the infection was copied. Then what happens?

Assuming they notice something affecting their equipment, they'd probably use different equipment to take a closer look. Otherwise, they wouldn't care as it's not their problem...

Feel free to pass that bong over this way.

Re:a question about viruses

[Entropius]

Anyone doing forensics like this -- if they actually cared and weren't just being annoying Barney Fife types, which is sadly probably the case in the US -- wouldn't actually execute any code on a confiscated disk. Just looking at the bits that make up a virus isn't going to do anything nefarious -- you have to run them.

this happened to me

[doginthewoods]

at a major CA dept. store. I asked the security person if she would sign a a letter of indemnity- if anything came up missing or damaged, or data copied from my laptop, or laptop turned on without my written permission, the store would replace at full retail any damaged items, and would be responsible for monetary loss from copied data or loss of data. The look on her face was beyond priceless. I followed up with: "well, if you take possession my stuff, then you are fully responsible for it. If you refuse responsibility for my possessions that you demand I hand over to you, then I will not shop here any longer." They said they were not responsible for any loss or damage while they held it.

I used to be all for the Law Enforcement, but...

[Vitriol Angst]

Lost in this whole discussion with Homeland Security -- is how do we make sure the people watching us, aren't the problem?

It's been almost a decade now, that I've felt that there was NO OVERSIGHT on people with power, and of course, we only put on trial the few bad apples that are disposable. But if we cannot have anyone at the Fed accountable for destroying the economy, if we can't have anyone at the Pentagon accountable for absolute failure on 9/11 and then LOSING $2 Trillion dollars that seemed to miss the headlines on 9/12, what the heck is the point of sniffing up every business man's trousers --- if they are REAL bad guys, they might just be working for Homeland Security.

Did anyone investigate why Homeland Security was funding the CIA's "Prostitutes and Poker" scandal at the Watergate Hotel? Did someone just declare "bygones" and we all forgot about it?

There is no transparency and accountability in regards to abuse. For all we know, HS could copy the hard drive of someone from GM and give the data to someone at GE for a great price. The risk/reward for corporate espionage when NOBODY IS WATCHING THE WATCHERS -- well, corruption is inevitable.

I might have some trust in Homeland Security, if they spent less time looking for dirty pictures and downloaded music files and a LOT MORE TIME, looking into things like the Sibel Edmonds testimony: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

I'd thrust my valuables in Palin

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust. Yeah. Bad typo.

new policy

[TRRosen]

Now they buy you dinner first!

Spelling in TFA

[HTH NE1]

Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a ditigal civil rights advocacy group

Yeah, and PETA is about protecting "aminals". How does a mistake like that get out on an Associated Press story?

Trust, but verify...

[rickb928]

Yep, so they would have to destroy the data within days if they had no legal reason to keep it.

And I believe that the gang down at the Geek Squad or the corner PC store won't copy my Pr0n collection, history, and links when I have them replace the motherboard. If they find any.

I trust the local guys more than I do DHS.

Fixed your signature for you...

[Tetsujin]

Vote Grimlock

There, fixed.

Kabonnnng!

[Tetsujin]

>> ...normally placed safely in the checked luggage..
> You're apparently using a definition of "safely" with which I was previously unaware.

Checking baggage is safe-- that is, safe for the crew and passengers. It's just not safe for guitars.

Yeah, ever since the TSA hired that "McGraw" fellow there have been a lot of incidents of smashed guitars in the luggage... Apparently the TSA is looking the other way because this is supposedly helping to curb terrorism...

The evil bogeyman

[Tetsujin]

How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?

That piece of paper may be a "financial instrument" AKA stock, bond or check that is worth something. That in turn might be used to fund drugs or heaven forbid, "terrorism". It might also be a piece of tissue that can be used, you know, to wipe your arse AKA "bio-hazard". Either way, they have to protect the [artificial man-made] nation from the evil bogeyman.

Of all the security checkpoints in all the border crossings in all the world, he had to walk into this one...

"shrinkage" and other confusing euphemisms

[Tetsujin]

People in stores get treated like criminals because an astonishingly high number of them are, in fact, criminals. 10% "shrinkage" is not uncommon in stores that take no steps to prevent it. This is interpreted to mean that 10% of the people walking through the door are there to steal. Not entirely statistically correct, but close enough for amatures.

With statistics like that, do you really blame store owners from instituting policies that seem to treat everyone like a criminal? And even with the sorts of receipt-checking and package searching policies in place they are still left with at least 3% shrinkage. Some of this is employee theft.

Damn, that just boggles the mind! I mean, I could see someone sneaking out of the local Target with a few DVDs - but an employee? Where would you put it?

I worked at Circuit City once and as part of the interview they asked me if there had been any incidents of shrinkage (or something, I can't remember what exactly they said, this was ten years ago...) at any of the places I had worked... I had no idea what they were asking...

Re:"shrinkage" and other confusing euphemisms

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at Circuit City once and as part of the interview they asked me if there had been any incidents of shrinkage (or something, I can't remember what exactly they said, this was ten years ago...) at any of the places I had worked... I had no idea what they were asking...

They were concerned about your tiny penis.

Re:"shrinkage" and other confusing euphemisms

[falconwolf]

I worked at Circuit City once and as part of the interview they asked me if there had been any incidents of shrinkage (or something, I can't remember what exactly they said, this was ten years ago...) at any of the places I had worked...

On shrinkage and employee theft I recall more than 20 years ago several months after I was hired to work at a convenience store another business bought the company I worked for. All of us employees were called into a meeting where we were told none of us would lose our jobs. A couple of weeks later we were called in for another meeting. At that meeting we were told the manager were being transfered to another store and being demoted to assistant manager while the rest of us were fired. They detailed why, one of the biggest reasons was shrinkage. Now here's what bothered me, they had the record broken down by tyme period of losses and the worst period of shrinkage was before I was hired. I pointed that out but they said it didn't matter, I was still fired.

So I concluded despite the letter they intended to fire a lot of employees anyway. They lied about not firing people because they wanted to hire and train new people before the current ones quit.

Falcon

Re:"shrinkage" and other confusing euphemisms

[Tetsujin]

I worked at Circuit City once and as part of the interview they asked me if there had been any incidents of shrinkage (or something, I can't remember what exactly they said, this was ten years ago...) at any of the places I had worked... I had no idea what they were asking...

They were concerned about your tiny penis.

Who isn't?

Where's Don Adams when you need him?

[Tetsujin]

...do they seriously catch any significant number of criminals this way?

RTFA.

One successful search the government cites from recent years: In 2006, a man arriving from the Netherlands at the Minneapolis airport had digital pictures of high-level al-Qaida officials, video clips of improvised explosive devices being detonated and of the man reading his will. The man was convicted of visa fraud and removed from the country.

Man, those credit card people are tough!

This isn't a change

[Mr. Freeman]

This is a small step forward, unfortunately:
1. A supervisor will approve ANYTHING if the words "for national security" are mentioned. After all, it would be irresponsible not to protect national security.
2. The patriot act gives them a "legal reason" to hold your data for as long as they like. Not to mention do anything else with your data (and you) that they want to... for national security, of course.

The phrases of the damned

[Tetsujin]

If you claim certain contents of your laptop's hard drive are original works of authorship created by yourself, couldn't you place a password on the account and sue them for circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work when they bypass the password?

Sure. Good luck with that.

(It's interesting to me that "Good luck with that" is one of those phrases which is has become stuck, perhaps permanently, with a meaning beyond its literal interpretation. It's like an idiom, except that the overall effect is that one who might want to use the phrase in a straightforward manner will find their effort thwarted by the alternative interpretation. It's much like "Who ya gonna call?" in that regard.)

Return of the Phrases of the Damned

[Tetsujin]

I think if that happened to me on an outbound flight, I would be inclined to sue for several million dollars in lost revenue to encourage DHS to use some common sense.

Sure. Good luck with that.

Re:Return of the Phrases of the Damned

[dgatwood]

I'd love to see it tested in court, merely because AFAIK financial liability for unreasonable detention is largely an untested area of law. The cases I'm aware of that (fail to) set the bar for reasonable border searches are all cases in which there was at least some degree of probable cause for conducting such a search (e.g. something illegal in plain sight) and in which the searches turned up something illegal as expected. Basically, they were all the sorts of cases in which it would have been surprising for the courts to not find in favor of the government.

It would be very interesting to see a case in which the government was on the defensive instead of the offensive, having detained someone without reasonable cause for an unreasonable amount of time, resulting in financial harm. Those sorts of cases, if they ever made it to court, are the sorts of cases that would stand a chance of setting actual standards of reasonableness.

Some cases are clearly doomed to fall one way or the other. The cases in the middle are the ones that set precedents.

Bunny slippers in the X-Ray

[Tetsujin]

They will still make you take off the bunny slippers and run them through the x-ray

Suddenly I am wishing I had a pair of bunny slippers with a skeleton that would show up on X-Ray. XD

Dawn of the Phrases of the Damned

[Tetsujin]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820183245

Huh. Good luck with that.

Cold dead fingers

[Tetsujin]

"You can have my laptop when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."Ã

Very well, if that is your final answer.

A man with a small briefcase comes into the room. He opens it, and dawns (sic) surgical gloves, pulling out a small glass vial and syringe.
"This won't take but a moment sir."

Ah, no. See, that's how it was under the old regime - some clown would drag out the "cold dead fingers" line and the border guards would respond by killing the poor dope. They don't do that any more. They figured out it was overkill as a response to such a simple act of defiance.

Now they just amputate the hand.

espionage

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think this is about? They do not care about private laptops. It's about industrial espionage. God fuck america...

Re:espionage

[Entropius]

And people doing industrial espionage carry their secrets on hard drives mounted in laptops across the border, unencrypted?

Re:espionage

[anyGould]

What do you think this is about? They do not care about private laptops. It's about industrial espionage. God fuck america...

Because when they can make full copies of everything legally, why wouldn't they?

Think of it this way: it's relatively inexpensive to keep everything, and the data-mining abilities will only improve. Who's to say that today's harmless college kid isn't an annoying politician ten years from now? What's the value of being able to point to those naughty pictures that he's long since forgotten about?

Top country

[Tetsujin]

Canada is the top country of origin when flying into the US, so it affects a large number of people.

-Malloc

Well, of course it is! You don't see another country up above it, do you?

Just a piece of paper

[Tetsujin]

And since the Constitution only protects against *unreasonable* search and seizure, there is nothing wrong here.

It's just a goddamned piece of paper.

That's all it ever was, really. It is only the efforts of people to support the document's intent, and their opposition of people who would subvert it, that has ever made it anything more.

"You can have my data...

[Ponga]

when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

Is there a problem officer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't want to be the guy that owns this computer...

http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2005/10/19/wmd_g-gnome/1/

Actually I would but that's another story.

See?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why we need a supervisor for the government too. But wait, I thought it was supposed to be transparent, wasn't that supposed to be the safeguard? But we can't access all of the government's information and be privy to all of its practices? Gawrsh!

Ship the storage separate via commercial?

[macraig]

If one doesn't need the laptop on the plane but rather only at the destination, why not remove the drive and ship it separately via a less nosy commercial service like UPS or Fedex to the destination? That way the nosy customs officials have nothing at all to look at and no reason to hold the device at all. When one arrives at the destination, simply reinstall the drive and get to work. The process can be repeated when it's time to return.

Whether actually practical or not, my suggestion points out how moronic and ill-considered are the current policies, which treat a device and information it might contain differently merely because it's in the company of a human passenger. Unless an X-ray scan reveals the laptop isn't really a laptop, leave it the fuck alone!

Remote versus local processing.

[sjbe]

Fine, *process* your stuff on the laptop, for which you may need all kinds of horsepower. But the files themselves shouldn't be there; have your apps access them remotely.

Great idea but doesn't work when you are working with gigabyte sized graphics files. It's easy to come up with other examples of large files making remote access impractical. Networks simply aren't fast enough to make that feasible at all times. I like the approach of remote access but sometimes it simply can't work for purely technical reasons.

kill everyone in charge and start over?

[Anonymous Coward]

this country ended a long time ago lets found a new land of the free

If this policy is known - it isn't very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

For instance, who in their right mind would bring a laptop through customs that had anything remotely illegal on it if there is a policy that they can search/confiscate the laptop?

I went to Canada a few weeks ago, and brought an extra laptop that I had sanitized ahead of time. If they wanted to dig through it, it would have been a glorious waste of their time. Anybody can create a truecrypt volume, upload it to drivehq (or something like that) and then download it when they get in/out of the country.

Granted, it can catch some stupid people (or more likely diversions) than anything.

What is ironic and eating at me,

[falconwolf]

I could swear I remember seeing a slashdot article where some TSA droid was harassing another airline customer. Except in this one, the TSA guy told reporters that it was the fact the person was carrying a copy of the bill of rights, and some cash, and he was flagged for additional inspection because of those two items alone.

There's been at least one article like this. Last year during the campaign a Ron Paul campaign worker was stopped and questioned because he carried a locked metal cash box as well as pamphlets, stickers, t-shirts, and other stuff from a convention.

Sadly, google is giving me no love on finding it.

I found that article googling airport tsa cashbox search campaign St Louis, it was the first result, but I didn't find the slashdot thread on it using Google.

Falcon

Safe in checked baggage?

[jdeking1]

I once had my PDA and digital camera stolen from my "safely" checked baggage. Thank God I took my laptop on board as a carry-on.

People held under power of US

[Anonymous Coward]

US constitution applies to any and all people held under the power of US government's agents. That includes secret torture camps as well as check points on the borders.

This misconception of Bush-era agents needs to be pointed out to them and if need be, fixed in court.

Keep them busy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now since they apparently watch all the videos and read all the files on your laptop, why not just put incredibly long videos on it? Set up a webcam filming your pet, and pretty soon you'll have a one-year-long video to take with you. How are they going to watch it? Or just make incredibly large archives, that expand to several terabytes of disk space, filled with data from an "experiment" (cat /dev/zero or similar)?

USA considered Harmful

[jbond23]

Which is just one more reason why I intend to never travel to the USA ever again. In this life time, anyway.

never leave the international arrivals area

[falconwolf]

"The Terminal".

Falcon