Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

25 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. 5 Days? by elzurawka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    -EL
    1. Re:5 Days? by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:5 Days? by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:5 Days? by shacky003 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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..

  2. I Believe 'em by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:I Believe 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

    2. Re:I Believe 'em by rawls · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  3. Welcome to the border by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    1. Re:Welcome to the border by surmak · · Score: 4, Funny

      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"

    2. Re:Welcome to the border by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Funny

      DHS is an equal opportunity employer, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  4. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by sabs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. A press release, nothing more by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  6. Copying files by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Copying files by kpainter · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      2. Classified

  7. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  8. Captain Obvious... by swanzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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...

  9. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by madfilipino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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".

  10. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, as they say,

    brevity is the of

  11. Five Days? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  13. Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  14. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by Vancorps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  16. Re:Well that sounds reasonable by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  17. I used to be all for the Law Enforcement, but... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"