Slashdot Mirror
Challenge To US Government Over Seized Laptops
angry tapir writes "The policy of random laptop searches and seizures by US government agents at border crossings is under attack again: The American Civil Liberties Union is working with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to find lawyers whose laptops or other electronic devices were searched at US points of entry and exit. The groups argue that the practice of suspicionless laptop searches violates fundamental rights of freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable seizures and searches."
Next case, please.
Aren't border crossings an exception to the Fourth Amendment, or rather, a circumstance where any search is considered "reasonable" by default?
I know that hardly anyone is going to read this (i just found it myself), but before we all go ranting on about this, it might be helpful to actually read the policy document with regards to search and seizure of electronic equipment by the Customs and Border Patrol: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissibility/elec_mbsa.ctt/elec_mbsa.pdf
How many other exceptions do you plan to make?
I read Challenge To US Government Over Seized Laptops as Challenge To US Government Over Sized Laptops and imagined laptops with 32 inch screens getting stuck at the XRay machines!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is no exception. Governaments have the right to make any kind of unwarranted search at border crossings. Citizen or no citiszen.
We need only two exceptions to cover all interesting cases:
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I would imagine that any search of a lawyer's laptop could potentially violate attorney-client privilege. That may be one reason why they are looking for lawyers as plaintiffs. If the searches are voided on attorney's for any reason then the equal protection clause might take effect and void them for others as well.
I'm just randomly speculating and no IANAL.
If too many of us do that, though, we'll get the Canadian equivalent of Lou Dobbs complaining about all those dirty American immigrants.
I am officially gone from
When it comes to border crossings, lawyers are not different from any other citizen. The only things exempt from search at the border are diplomatic pouches.
SirWired
I guess you missed the article on the new 32 inch netbooks
Or just redefine border
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
That's nothing.
When I read it I couldn't get the image out of my head of over sized penises cross dressing and doing lap dances in order to fool borderline agents in a ploy to sneak weapon-grade lawyers into the country.
Next time, I'll just read more carefully instead of making a post about it.
- These characters were randomly selected.
I read somewhere (Dante, I suppose) that there exixt special accomodations for lawyers and the like.
There is nothing to FEAR but NOTHING itself; and I fear there is a whole lot of nothing going on. --scorpivs
So I'm going to the US for a IT related conference by invitation. Obviously having your laptop with you is 'mandatory', yet can I really afford the risk of losing an expensive computer that pretty much is the center piece of my thesis studies and various programming related activities?
More importantly, how does the US expect to keep its technological lead when visitors have these kinds of worries just entering the country?
- These characters were randomly selected.
The US Government is constrained by the Constitution.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't say "...except at border crossings."
If you want to argue that a search at the border might not be unreasonable, that's a different argument, but per se, the US Government does not have any special right to conduct searches at the border.
My rights, as a US Citizen, WRT the US Government, extend around the world. They aren't suspended just because I'm at a border crossing.
IANAL, obviously.
I did travel to US a some time ago when things where more relaxed, airport control was reasonable.
It would be very upsetting and damaging if US border seize my laptop for no reason whatsoever and keep it indefenitely.
It is important to remember that the laptop is NOT a forbidden item or somewhat illegal, they keep it, just in case.
If it is the info they are after then just clone the HD and give the machine back !
On the privacy issue, it is clear that technology is extending our brain in terms of "storage capacity", kind of like a diary but in a way that is beyond a book in terms of search, speed, capacity. To me laptop search is like rumaging into your own mind diary, looking for connections, events, stories. Fair point if you at least have some lead of illicit activity otherwise it becomes just fishing for something, you never know.
I know that facebook just said that "privacy is over", I just hope we will not have to put up a real fight sooner or later to get our privacy back from our big brother.
P.S. Regarding catching "terrorists" at border crossing, what about some working intelligence ? Really, how can you trust the government when some many screwup happens so often... why normal citizen cannot record what police do ?
Oversized laptops... They're almost oversized by definition for proper mobility.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you don't have backup copies of your work on a USB drive or on a file server somewhere where you could download it, should such a need arise?
Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Wasn't that the result of a "so and so bill of rights" which is the favored naming of new rules passed by Congress which only seem to allow government agencies to abuse me? I mean, it seems each time I get a new Bill of Rights I spend more time under the thumb of some government or business.
I guess I can now plan around such outrages, knowing how long I will be without needed personal or business data, how long I will be required to sit in an office/detention/airplane/etc.
I wish they would quit codifying my rights and obey the ones that were supposed to be inalienable from the get-go
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
A laptop can be replaced, but data can't. Be sure you leave a backup behind!
Here's an interesting one for you: I work in IT forensics and malware research. Thus I tend to have a few exploits on my laptop, very alive and ready to strike. Especially when I go to a convention in the US and plan to use them for a speech. Many of those things are POCs that can by their very nature not be detected by any common anti malware program, because they exist exactly once, on my laptop.
How high would you estimate the chance that...
1) Some dufus border cop has nothing better to do than to start one of those babies outside a sandbox?
2) Or execute them while attaching the laptop to a government network?
3) Or copying it, handing it to whoever handles forensics for them and him executing it on a network?
4) Me getting blamed for the ensuing damage?
There is a very good reason I encrypt everything on my laptop every time I have to travel to the US. So far I have been lucky and was never asked to decrypt it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They aren't suspended just because I'm at a border crossing.
they are. and they are in EVERY country. they all 'like' this. they will not give this 'rule' back.
sorry to inform you but the world IS run by a bunch of power hungry sick-os. aka, politicians. they DO think like this. no, they are not tech/scientists like we are. they don't think like us. they use anti-logic when making laws.
sucks, huh?
welcome to the non-disney real world. watch your step.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The US Government is constrained by the Constitution.
Yes, but in the sense, the government is only allowed to do what it says the constitution says it can do. Essentially, if not for the 4th amendment, you could make the argument the Federal government is not allowed to conduct searches at all. It's up to the states.
This is my sig.
Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Boy, that's a heck of a customer service attitude to take. And we want Americans to sell stuff to the rest of the world? The enterprise of the USA has to be as friendly and easy as McDonalds, and that, my friend, is not.
This is my sig.
Stay home.
There are a few simple ways they can improve the system (and answer some of the criticism) without compromising national security one bit.
The easiest step they could take would be that anytime they take an item, they have to give you a receipt for it. A simple bit of paper that lists all the items they are taking, doesn't need to say why, just that it was taken by customs and which agent took it and the date and time it was taken.
But if nobody is going to prevent the government agents from violating the constitution, then it doesn't make much difference what the thing says.
Very low, I'd imagine. Let's try the converse: "I work in medical forensics and virus research. Thus I tend to have a few live viruses in my bag, very alive and ready to strike"
I'm sure along with the guidelines they'll have been issued with around what to check for, they'll also have some strict controls on what not to do with it - like keeping it airgapped.
The 4th amendment does not apply. As with every other country, the US considers domestic law to only apply when you are inside the country. If you have not yet cleared customs, you are technically not in the country. Therefore, you do not benefit from the protections of domestic law. This may seem like quibbling, but it is how every country controls its borders.
It is not only laptops: many people have also been required to show the photos on their cameras, as well as the contents of other electronic devices.
Whether or not such searches make any sense is another question altogether.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
"The groups argue that the practice of suspicionless laptop searches violates fundamental rights of freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable seizures and searches."
Silly rabbits, there have been no fundamental rights in the U.S. for years now....
Customer Service Attitude? What, pray tell, are you on about?
Given what I've heard, I can can just as easily imagine that my laptop could have been seized on my recent trip to Ireland.
I don't keep single copies of important work. And I wouldn't like having my laptop seized, but it wouldn't be the end of the world as the GP would have us believe.
The difference is maybe that there are (hopefully!) laws and regulations how you may transport those viruses. After all, they can infect simply by exposing people to them.
Such laws and restrictions do not apply when transporting malware, for a good reason. A computer virus by itself is very harmless. Even having it on your hard drive doesn't make it dangerous in any way. There are quite a few pieces of malware on my server, yet it's safe (not only 'cause it runs a system those viruses cannot infect). You have to actively DO something to make the infection happen. You have to run that program. That's the difference, and that's generally also the reason why special care is unnecessary when transporting them. Just 'cause I have them on my HD doesn't mean I can infect anyone around (ok, if I ran it, if WiFi or other wireless communication is on... let's not go overboard here).
I'm not so sure that there are any reasonable precautions in existance. I'm actually pretty sure they either have the order to make a complete image (by the way of "insert DVD, plug USB drive, start computer...) or, worse, they have the order to browse the drive and open files that sound suspicious. And as anyone knows who got infected by a PDF document or by a Windows exploit, opening a data file or even just browsing into the wrong directory can trigger an infection.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
techs are being improved that can give reasonable certainty for HIV within 1-2weeks .. basically by being extremely sensitive and detecting every very small numbers of the virus.
and actually for some people like refugees these ... and even the 6month versions are done, and people get rejected for having HIV because the cost of treatment to the government (in countries with socialised healthcare)
Its not just the US doing this. The UK has been doing it as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/150465.stm
All countries have the right to do any type of search they want at a border crossing. Thats how they protect their country.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you don't have backup copies of your work on a USB drive or on a file server somewhere where you could download it, should such a need arise?
Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Or that you couldn't convert to or adopt a more ascetic faith, one that puts a lesser value on worldly goods, like, for instance Buddhism? I don't see why you haven't considered this option either. Really, travelers need to be more prepared w.r.t. faith needs in this post 9/11 world.
I am not a crackpot.
WTF? Governments don't have rights.
What you are thinking of is "government has a duty to protect its citizens", and this duty is all too easily perverted into "government has a right to exert control over its citizens", not even mentioning the xenophobic mentality "everything alien is presumed hostile until proven otherwise".
I cringe every time someone suggests that any form of government control or freedom impediment is "logical", or even "natural". Every government interference is just that, interference. Many of them are acceptable, some are even desirable. But none are "natural", and even less are "the only option".
Don't confuse is and ought.
Are you suggesting that we merely resign ourselves to that fact borders are rights-free zones, even if that's not the way the world ought to work? In that case, you're a coward.
Or are you suggesting that our rights ought not to apply at the border for some a priori reason? Can that reason distinguish between rights at borders and rights inside a country? Or better searches and arbitrary detentions? The kind of reasoning that leads someone to believe arbitrary searches are acceptable inevitably leads him down the path to endorsing a nightmare police state.
If that's you, then you're an enemy of modern civilization.
So which is it?
The US Government is constrained by the Constitution.
The US Government, like any other government, is constrained by what its citizens are willing to allow it to do and what they are able to prevent it from doing. The constitution is a document detailing what the founders of the country thought the citizens ought to permit the government to do. The will of the citizens can be expressed through elections, through the courts, and through passive or violent rebellion. The first two options are not available in a large proportion of the world, and it is important to use them actively and responsibly in the parts, such as the USA, where they are.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There should be a reason why they go into your laptop as in your bags. If you have no previous record, and have nothing like a bomb swab positive or what not, then it should be like cavity searches, they are not allowed until they have cause, which in this case they seem to want to find it by going into your laptop.
I have a laptop that has encrypted disk for good measure....they keep it, all I have on there is a few games and some movies, you are telling me that this is reason to keep my laptop....I think this is way off, not only could they plant something, then you would only find out about it afterwards...and have to put up a good defense, but in the lawyer's case who lives out of his briefcase and laptop,
that is virtual suicide...they really do not want to make life easy for traveling, then they wonder why tourism is way down...
not only are the tickets getting too expensive by the day, they make it impossible for someone to travel in comfort or even
to be able to keep working from abroad.
Absolutely, and even without the the risk of confiscation, flying is one of the times when a laptop is most likely to be lost or damaged. Run a backup before you leave, run an rsync (or whatever) update before you go back.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
(what's all that BS about?)
all I'm saying is that in the real world, your ideals and values mean NOTHING. when some gov official is raping your rights, you have NOTHING you can do about it.
nothing.
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win.
do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The governmenmthas teh authority to restrict commerce. They check yoru car for fruit. Now that data is considered property thanks to the DMCA and RIAA, they have the right probably based just on that. To ensure you are not taking software or other copyrighted items out of the country.
Given that, is it worth the sacrifice to human rights to keep doing it?
NO. My view is that unless the law enforcement officer has a reasonable expectation that some criminal activity is going on, they shouldn't have the ability to seize data or search laptops. This includes customs agents.
I think it is funny that people say "you don't have those rights at border crossings", and yet that isn't even the government contention. The government believes that laptops and other electronic devices are open containers that can be examined at will after they've been seen. In other words if this stands as a principle and you're walking down the street and they can see your iPod they (meaning police) can seize and examine the iPod. This is a principle of incremental legislation and enforcement. Case studies of similar expansions are found in seat belt laws, and punishment for driving under the influence. As to people saying you don't have the rights accorded to the Constitution when crossing borders they are completely wrong. Administrations have held that point of view. They have also held that your rights (and responsibilities) apply wherever you are found. So, you have those rights, but can be charged for crimes from the United States even when where you are the incident is not illegal (e.g. child porn, gambling, etc..).
--- Location Unknown
there is PEP, or post exposure prophylaxis, where they give you a course of antivirals, and if you start within like 1hr of being exposed youve got a reasonable chance of not being infected.
(what's all that BS about?)
all I'm saying is that in the real world, your ideals and values mean NOTHING. when some gov official is raping your rights, you have NOTHING you can do about it.
nothing.
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win.
do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
Maybe we could, I don't know, sue the border agents and the executive branch of our government, so that MAYBE the judicial branch will strike down these acts, or at least limit them, as unconstitutional and give us some case law on the matter. You know, kinda exactly like what the ACLU is trying to do here.
/sarcasm
Nah, that's just too hard! We should all just resign ourselves to accept the inalienable and indisputable fact that the federal government is in absolute control and there is nothing we can ever do. That definitely sounds better.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
The US Government is constrained by the Constitution.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't say "...except at border crossings."
If you want to argue that a search at the border might not be unreasonable, that's a different argument, but per se, the US Government does not have any special right to conduct searches at the border.
My rights, as a US Citizen, WRT the US Government, extend around the world. They aren't suspended just because I'm at a border crossing.
IANAL, obviously.
More precisely, the 4th amendment states the rights of the people, not only of citizens. In some places rights are defined for people (such as the right to a fair trial), and in others for citizens only (such as voting, becoming president, etc.)
You can't take the sky from me...
Obviously, you haven't seen 12 Monkeys. :-)
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
The government has the authority to do many things in a legal manner. No one is arguing that. No one is even arguing against searches and seizures at the border. The argument is against the illegal searches and seizures (no probable cause, etc) that is occurring.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Worse yet, as I understand it the 'border' of the US is defined as the first 100mi from the actual edge. Thus any coastal cities are considered 'border' and thus any search is considered 'reasonable' by default.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/18/driver-confronts-border-patrol-agents-100-miles-inside-the-us/
The interesting bit with that extended border thing, is that technically the airport any international flight lands at is a border. That adds an extra 31,416 square miles of border that they're allowed to search at all times. With a total area of 3,794,101 square miles they only need 120 perfectly placed airports with an 'international border point' to cover all of the US.
How many already exist?
I think everyone entering the US with a laptop should have a wallpaper saying something to the effect of "If I was going to import CONTRABAND I would use the INTERNET, not my LAPTOP." :)
As George Bernard Shaw famously and pithily put it:
Its not just the US doing this. The UK has been doing it as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/150465.stm
All countries have the right to do any type of search they want at a border crossing. Thats how they protect their country.
The US government doesn't have any rights. "We the people" have rights.
Back in the days of DOS, Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) used to write a computer column. Basically back then all airport security would ask you to do is turn your laptop on, just to confirm that it is a working laptop, and not, say, a laptop packed with C4 where the battery and hard drive should be.
/C:x /T:x,30 > NUL
He suggested that when traveling you should NOT, DEFINITEY NOT put the following in your laptop's AUTOEXEC.BAT file:
ECHO READY
ECHO ARMING....
ECHO ARMED
ECHO *** DETONATION IN 00:30 ***
ECHO Press 'x' to abort.
CHOICE
ECHO GOODBYE
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
My laptop always have a folder full of goat-see picture and naked obsesses people right on the desktop named confidential do not look.
That way if they take my laptop the have to suffer.
IAAL and here's a presentation I gave at ShmooCon and DefCon last year entitled "They Took My Laptop! - 4th and 5th Amendment Explained." The Defcon video isn't available yet, unfortunately, since the content is more up to date. The video goes into a decent amount of depth on the current body of laws in regards to laptop seizures. Anyway, thought it might be of use.
Cheers,
T
600
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I'm not a lawyer, but when you are going through customs you aren't technically in the US yet because you are in the process of entering the US. thus you don't have your normal constitutional protections (4th amendment). you have whatever rights they feel like giving you.
Not necessarily all international, mind you, but "approximately 600 airports certified for large commercial aircraft" according to the article. Somebody more familiar with FAA terminology might be able to glean the information from their site.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I'm glad our founders weren't as defeatest as you.
Could be interesting to see a map with each of those airports pinned and a 100 mile circle around it. Just to see if any place is left out.
There is a minor point being missed here: what's stopping them from misusing the data they find on confiscated laptops and storage media? What prevents them from using seized information from filling out their social network maps for "people of interest" (for some definition of 'interest') or finding new people to keep a close eye on? Also, because an unknown volume of the stuff they confiscate and never return winds up sold off in lots on eBay (remember the huge lots of pocket knives, cuticle scissors, knitting stuff, and other bric-a-brac from a couple of years ago), what is to stop people from buying lots of (say) confiscated USB keys and external drives and rifling through them for usable or saleable information?
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
Are they in or outside the US? The point is that they insist for their right to search it's in the US, but when it comes to their responsibility, it's outside the US.
Pick one.
I don't care which, pick ONE.
Aren't border crossings an exception to the Fourth Amendment
That is the current interpretation they want to challenge and overturn that as well. Lawyer client privilege is the 6th amendment BTW, so it is a broader than the 4th amendment which has the "reasonable search" exception. The 6th amendment has no such exception, so seams like a challenge asking the courts "Does any part of the constitution apply at the border?"
You think I'm an idiot? Of course I got my stuff backed up and version controlled.
Yet how am I going to do any work without a computer... It's not like I can afford to buy a replacement nor can I afford to delay any of my stuff with even a couple of weeks.
- These characters were randomly selected.
That error is unimportant for the GP post. It says persons. So it includes MORE than citizens, therefore, though "wrong", it doesn't change the GP poster's point.
Hey, man, life is hard and it sucks so just bend over and take it. And don't whimper if there's no lube. Just live in the 'real' world. George the Third, just let him tax you with no representation. He's the real world and there's nothing you can do about it.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Might be a business opportunity here. Set up a service that would allow folks to rent a laptop with an easily replaced hard drive, once they're inside the US. The customer can then either purchase a new hard drive and image it with their personal image (backed up before they left to some server or some such) or install their own hard drive (mailed out ahead of time?). Sure, there's the chance of a key logger or some such being installed in the laptop so you'd need a good rep and bond for the rental company but still, there might be a market for this.
The US govt has already done this with some of the american jihadis.
The 1st Congress (who could be presumed to know what was intended by the 4th amendment) passed a law explicitly allowing for searches of anything and everything at the border.
The 4th amendment does not prohibit search/seizure without a warrant; it prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizure without a warrant. "Reasonable" can be determined by statute, subject to review by the courts.
SirWired
The Fourth Amendment does say "unreasonable". The US Congress has decided that border searches are reasonable, and the US Supreme Court has (IIRC) agreed with that. There's a bit of a loophole in the Fourth. It lays down certain criteria for a warrant, but doesn't say a search needs a warrant. The US government is free to define criteria for reasonableness; for example, a law enforcement officer may under some circumstances search an area to see if there's a weapon that a given person might be able to reach.
The only Constitutional question is what is reasonable or unreasonable.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Me too, But I am dysleixc.
Just a bit of anti logic fixes this problem.
Simply don't cross at Mexican border crossings. It may help to be conspicuously Caucasian. Dress like volunteer border patrol.
Canada; Same thing, try not to leave snow tracks.
Come and go as you please. Try not to attract attention. Bring me back some contraband when you do. LOL
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The 6th amendment guarantees access to counsel (among other things.) What does it have to do with stopping search of affects owned by an attorney?
Now, it does limit what can be done with anything collected (and in practice, it changes how the search is conducted), under the idea that you cannot receive effective advice of counsel if the papers are subject to search, but that does not stop the search from taking place to begin with.
SirWired
Yes, they are. That's why Guantanamo can exist.
Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Where to begin with this...
First - the principle should make your entire "argument" moot. If his laptop was not seized unreasonably in the first place, then the rest of the discussion would be unnecessary. Your argument is based on the foundation that these seizures are acceptable to begin with, but you've provided nothing to support that assumption.
Second - one man's "expensive nuisance" is another man's livelihood. Even more so in this DRM'd age, when software is tied to specific machines -- on my development box I have over $10k in legitimate software that I require, but much of it can't be moved to another machine without major hassle - and some can't be moved at all.
Third: IP concerns. You have no idea what happens to the data on these machines. Government officials are people too. While I don't think the government as a whole is going to turn around and do something evil with my data, I have no such confidence in the individuals employed by the same government. There are also very real concerns about things like trade secret agreements (providing the data on my system to ANYONE would cost me a huge amount of money) and contractual obligations (clients don't want to hear that the government stole my laptop - so that would cost me money too).
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you don't have backup copies of your work on a USB drive or on a file server somewhere where you could download it, should such a need arise?
Well that just takes care of any possible problem associated with this behavior, doesn't it?
That's really the essence of the situation. The piece of paper really is just a piece of paper if the people don't believe in it. If the people said (for real in voting booths, not just in internet blogs) they wanted border policies to change, then border policies would change.
But when you get right down to it, most of us don't cross the borders very often, so at the detail level, it's just not a big issue. And in the bigger picture, people don't vote for liberty in general. Liberty is way down the list, below ephemera such as
and so on. That stuff is way more important than the vague, distant idea behind the 4th amendment, and we assert so, every 2 years.
My brother works in Europe, but visits the US regularly.
His company will not allow him to take his laptop to the US (following incidents where other employees laptops we seized), so he now keeps a second laptop in the US for use while he's there and transfers data on flash drives (encrypted of course).
A few years ago when this was first reported I had no strong thoughts about it, mainly because the exclusion in the constitution seemed to be OK. This seizure doesn't happen within the borders only at the borders so and as long as they don't break the device or hold it for an unreasonable length of time... it seems OK.
HOWEVER I now believe it is crazy for at least 2 reasons.
a) it's archaic, anything you could reasonably want on your laptop you could "store in the cloud" and grab it once you're within the border
but more to the point
b) what's the worst that can happen from importing a laptop to a country?
Let's examine (b) for a minute. Assuming the device isn't a way to smuggle something physical like drugs or a weapon, then the only thing on that laptop are ideas. (If you're worried about child porn, see reason (a) above.) I would hope that our society is robust enough that it can withstand any "conflicting" ideas that may be present on someone's laptop and because of this, it might be time to consider a universal bill-of-rights, freedom of speech being one of them.
There may even be precedent for this concept... IANAL, but what's the logic behind a "diplomatic pouch"? I believe they are only big enough to allow a limited amount of a thing. A pouch may be big enough to bring a gun in, but not big enough to bring a tank in. A gun is no threat to a country, a tank... somewhat more of a threat. Similarly, I believe the founders of the diplomatic pouch idea felt that ideas are not a threat to a country. Or at least ideas originating from a country that we have a diplomatic relationship with are not a threat.
Then finally, I believe the reason why most /.ers are worried about this is again related to the concept that laptops store ideas... the other main storage location for ideas are inside our heads. It's a crazy leap to be sure, but I think viscerally some may object to the inherent "idea censorship" that's implied in laptop seizures.
(what's all that BS about?)
all I'm saying is that in the real world, your ideals and values mean NOTHING. when some gov official is raping your rights, you have NOTHING you can do about it.
nothing.
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win.
do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
You rephrased the fact that you feel there is NOTHING anyone can do 8 times over at least 2 posts. The irony is that you're commenting on an article where they are trying to do SOMETHING.
In fact, even you're doing something (it's just no positive). You're an enabler. You go around telling everyone there's nothing you can do so it's OK. At the very least just do society a favor and STFU.
If you are going to a conference, consider bringing your data on DVD (multiple ones perhaps), and then mailing your computer to your hotel (and back). Insure it, whatever, but it's probably more likely to get there unmolested.
And the replacement costs for his laptop shouldn't amount to anything?
In essence, there is no such thing - it is in fact any item appropriately documented as being such in nature. Indeed, crypto machines, etc, are routinely brought in - and more than once, countries have or have attempted to extradite people / remove dead bodies via the "diplomatic bag".
Without borders, there is no state. This is the way it ought to work. The distinction is between rights in a country and those outside a country, and specifically the right to move goods and people across that threshold.
It's ironic, though, that you conflate "modern civilization" with the notion of individual rights. When modern civilization (the US city-state at least) was divorced from the land and underlying resources necessary to sustain it, it became incompatible with natural rights, necessarily. I should hope by now the evidence for this is clear, though I would be happy to provide it.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
In which case he'd be doing more of nothing, which is the course of action you're arguing against!
Clearly, they are ignoring the Constitution, but that doesn't mean they have any legitimate delegated power to do so.
Other countries have their own laws and may or may not be complying with them, but for the U.S., the Constitution applies to actions of the U.S. government wherever it may be. The Bill of Rights is a bit of a special case only in that it explicitly disallows some actions. Many felt it unnecessary since any power not explicitly granted in the Constitution is denied by default anyway.
Their fear (justified by time) was that the Bill of Rights would come to be treated as the only restrictions.
Consider, 1st ammendment unneeded. Nothing GRANTED government any power to regulate speech AT ALL, so clearly abridging it is out.
Likewise, nothing granted power to regulate religion or firearms.
If you have a laptop with data that valuable, then leave it at home. Bring a $300 netbook and get a phone that lets you tether. You can remote into your DRMed, $10k, laptop with unmovable data if it is necessary.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win.
do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
Cowardice dressed up as wisdom, inflated by conceit. You enable those whom you hate. What a horrible life.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Spoken like a true coward.
You aren't powerless to fix this, any more than you are powerless to clean up a field full of garbage. What both require, however, is patience and persistence in the face of seeing very little or no change except over a long time.
Many of us have been raised to believe that effecting change should be easy, neat, and not require us to get our hands dirty. This is of course complete bullshit. The political process is ugly and frustrating, but it's part of our obligation as citizens (remember that word? citizen? it doesn't mean the same thing as "consumer") of a mostly-free society to participate. If we don't, then the only people who DO participate -- the power-hungry fuckwads -- win by default.
I have seen many people try to change the world, then get disgusted when it doesn't happen overnight, and quit. Then, rather than admitting they failed by virtue of laziness, they decide to try to convince everyone else of the futility of change because it makes them feel better about themselves and their own voluntary state of powerlessness. Or, even worse, they start to advocate violent revolution without having studied enough history to understand that revolutions are generally an ocean full of suck for those without political power to begin with.
The true nature of society is to standing in a river of shit, and always has been. And the true obligation of a citizen is to shovel against that tide, forever.
A lot of the idealists are going to give you shit for holding this position. They have their reasons, and some of them might even be good ones, but let's skip that for now. If you're a realist or a pragmatist, their idealism probably isn't going to do much for you. And I get where you're coming from. Here in the US, we have a large number of disenfranchised voters who feel exactly the same way as you. And the Powers That Be really like it that way, since less voters means less work buying elections.
On the plus side, votes do seem to count. If you look at the ridiculous amounts of money being spent in US politics on campaigns, that should be prime evidence of the power of the vote. The problem, of course, is in who holds that power. Voters cast their votes for a great many reasons, and some of those reasons have been fairly easy to subvert.
The cure for this problem is not simple, and it is not easy, and I don't blame you for not wanting to help. A great many good people will likely need to stand up and serve jail time and worse in acts of civil disobedience to try and change things. Getting people to stand up and take notice to what is going on around them, and not just passively tune out discussions of politics and social justice will be a major challenge by itself. Getting people to believe in change, and to believe in a better way of social governance, and actively participate in politics... that does seem pretty impossible. And if that dream were to ever come true, and we did 'fix' things, it would carry with it a good of different problems.
But I have some good news. It only feels like there is nothing you can do about it. The bad news is that there are powerful forces at work trying to make sure you always feel that way. Of course, it has pretty much always been up to you how you want to feel about that, and what you want to do about that. Rather than passively accepting that things suck and committing yourself to the belief that it will never change, even something simple like trying to engage people in discussions on political issues can help. The more minds like yours that we can even open to the possibility of change can only help.
Of course, change is not without risk, and getting your hopes up is a good way to see them dashed to pieces at your feet. But, you already know how it is. This is the real world.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
What we are doing is not coming to America... That works even better. You want me to get a ficken netbook just cus Team America are going to save the ficken day by taken peoples laptops?
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
What if you're 40 miles (64km) inside the country and stopped at a "border checkpoint," despite never having left the country?
Put identity in the browser.
"Sir, I need you to type your cryptofs password here so I can inspect your laptop."
"I Forgot. It"
If you're using a good password, that's actually fairly plausible... In fact, why not just do a final rsync back to your backup server before you head out on your way to the border crossing, set a crypto password you don't know, and remove the one you do know. It takes way less time than wiping the hard drive. And when you get back home, you have the data on your backup server.
And with netbooks, the laptop I travel with is effectively disposable. When I get back home I want to be using my normal laptop so I'll sync down (or bzr pull) the data I need anyway.
Sean
I am in a similar position (except I live in the US) and I'd say just go for it. Your data is irreplaceable so back it up. Your computer isn't. It's expensive.
Option B: Get a $200 eepc, take that to the conference
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Or if your laptop happens to be considered a bomb and needs to have 3 bullets placed in it like in Israel... http://matzav.com/us-student-police-shot-my-laptop-upon-entry-to-israel
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Download Virtualbox, set up a virtual machine, and move all of your important work to the virtual hard drive.
Then, before you travel, make two backup copies of the virtual machine hard drive, one on a USB drive that is carefully stored, and one compressed with gzip -9, on a network accessible file storage. Then delete the virtual hard drive, and wipe the unused disk space by some means, even if you only make several copies of your OS files into another folder until the hard drive is full, then delete them all.
Then, when the border agents inspect your laptop there is nothing there except some games, a few bookmarks and your travel itinerary.
After you get to your hotel, fire up the computer, download and decompress the virtual hard drive, and keep on working as normal. If the laptop was confiscated at the border, buy a new one, install Virtualbox, download the virtual hard drive and get back to work.
Sure, it'd be an expensive nuisance to replace it if your laptop is one of the microscopically small percentage that are seized; but if that's where the only copy of your life's work resides, then you're a fool in more ways than one.
Where to begin with this...
First - the principle should make your entire "argument" moot. If his laptop was not seized unreasonably in the first place, then the rest of the discussion would be unnecessary. Your argument is based on the foundation that these seizures are acceptable to begin with,
Untrue. Nothing I wrote suggests or implies that.
but you've provided nothing to support that assumption.
Precisely, because there is no such implication. You somehow have assumed it.
Second - one man's "expensive nuisance" is another man's livelihood. Even more so in this DRM'd age, when software is tied to specific machines -- on my development box I have over $10k in legitimate software that I require, but much of it can't be moved to another machine without major hassle - and some can't be moved at all.
By the OP's logic, maybe I should start planning what to do with my lottery winnings.
No. (And first I'd have to buy a lottery ticket.)
Spending lots of time worrying about something that happens maybe 1/100 of 1% of the time isn't, IMO, worth worrying about. Diminishing returns and that sort of thing.
But if one is genuinely concerned that their laptop might be confiscated, by all means, take preventative measures.
Third: IP concerns. You have no idea what happens to the data on these machines.
See above.
Government officials are people too. While I don't think the government as a whole is going to turn around and do something evil with my data, I have no such confidence in the individuals employed by the same government. There are also very real concerns about things like trade secret agreements (providing the data on my system to ANYONE would cost me a huge amount of money) and contractual obligations (clients don't want to hear that the government stole my laptop - so that would cost me money too).
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you don't have backup copies of your work on a USB drive or on a file server somewhere where you could download it, should such a need arise?
Well that just takes care of any possible problem associated with this behavior, doesn't it?
I don't grok your point.
Sink a flag in the soil and claim it in the name of "Bob".
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The searches and seizures are 'justified' by one thing only: Kiddy porn. Though the argument is sometimes made that the searches are to capture dangerous terrorism filez or mp3s that were acquired in contravention of copyright, the fact that many are uncomfortable to admit (but everyone knows) is that these efforts are entirely centered on collecting CP. It matters not that much of the CP in circulation is just scans from magazines that could easily be purchased in bookstores in the US back in the 1970`s or Russian and Japanese child model photos, all of which were legal to produce and distribute when they were made.
Sure, there exists the CP equivalent of snuff films out there, where the victims experienced terrible and enduring harm, but that stuff is the exception rather than the norm. When you hear of someone being busted with 10,000 kiddy porn images on their hard drive, you can bet that 9,990 or more of those images were shot by professional photographers of models who were properly and legally paid for their work.
$billions and endless aggravation at the airports in order to deprive some geeks of their prized collections of voyeuristic beach photos? In order to end the stupidity a concerted effort must be made to reorient the discussions about childhood sexuality and child exploitation from insane hysteria to something more reasonable.
Your choice, dear reader: Become more respectful of individual privacy rights or continue to believe that the threat to society of the possession of pictures of scantily clad middle schoolers is so dire that it trumps all rights.
It's called encryption. Personally, I recommend TrueCrypt.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Not every country. Some of our us have customs services with clear rules as outlined by our customs act. As AQIS are a branch of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) they have to operate under the same rules, restrictions and oversight as the rest of the AFP with regards to detention and treatment of the public but have to follow the Customs act with search and seizure.
AQIS may only seize 1) dutiable goods 2) excisable goods 3) prohibited goods under Australian law. Contrary to popular opinion, when you enter Australia (passed the passport inspection checkpoint) you have the rights of a visitor, resident or citizen of Australia (whichever is applicable) and are protected under law. This means you are also bound by Australian law, in particular our Customs Act which states what you may or may not bring into the country, so you have the rights but also the responsibility as it is a crime to fail to declare anything you bring into the country.
That being said, AQIS is more interested on weather you're trying to get fruit, chicken bones or animal skins into the country or if you've got an aerosol can in your luggage (aerosol cans don't like pressure changes, it tends to make them explode).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No. The course of action that NFN_NLN is arguing against is doing nothing apart from bitching about it on slashdot.
If you're determined to do nothing to fix an admitted serious problem, the very least that you can do is stop bothering the people who actually are trying to do something about it.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Why are people so angry about oversized laptops. The little ones are too hard to read. My eyes aren't as good as they used to be and I need an oversized laptop. With so many different models .... What? Seized laptops? Well, that's different.
Never mind.
"The groups argue that the practice of suspicionless laptop searches violates fundamental rights of freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable seizures and searches." If this isn't obvious, then Welcome, Police State!
Yep. Is it time to trot out the Douglas Adams quote about lizards again?
Yes?
Well okay then.
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Actually, the Border patrol has full jurisdiction 100 miles inside the border.
"...So if the US government were to kill a US citizen outside the US, the US government would not be liable in a US court?..."
Of course not. They would be liable in an International court.
Remember Nuremberg?
> I work in IT forensics and malware research. Thus I tend to have a few exploits on my laptop, very alive and ready to strike.
"Research," huh?
I have an "experiment" in mind. It involves the MPAA, the RIAA, Microsoft, and The Church of Scientology. And your laptop. I'll let you figure out the rest.
"She added that she had also been carrying an Arabic phrasebook, stamps from Syria, Qatar and the UAE and a Palestinians in Palestine guidebook."
How ignorant does one have to be to not to think this is going to raise some red flags.
I understand that. They shouldn't, though, have the right to search anyone, U.S. citizen or not, crossing from another country or not, without cause (suspicionless) for drugs and weapons in large swaths of border states. And, if you watch the videos, you'll realize that they don't actually have that right (as evidenced by the subjects' refusal to cooperate or answer any questions without any repercussion by the border patrol). they simply pretend to have the right and try to intimidate U.S. citizens.
Put identity in the browser.
There is a problem with that: they are also authorized to demand the passphrases for any and all encrypted data and can prevent you from officially entering the United States until you give them the passphrases.
Here's an article, and here is a post from the NorCal ACLU on the same topic. There are others out there but they're pretty easy to dig up.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
Screw you and your absolute pessimism!
I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
The answer to that is don't let them find it in the first place. Use TrueCrypt to create a hidden volume, and then setup a dummy OS (maybe just a Linux shell, if you want to use a little obscurity).
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
(what's all that BS about?)
all I'm saying is that in the real world, your ideals and values mean NOTHING. when some gov official is raping your rights, you have NOTHING you can do about it.
nothing.
this is the powerless that we all feel as being part of the modern world.
nothing you can do about it, either. nothing.
sorry to break it to you but MANY things in this world are really really wrong and nothing you can do about it. your youthful ideals won't help you. just accept it. life has MANY things like this that you cannot fight or win.
do I like this? HELL NO. but I live in the real world.
There's nothing you can do about it because your a spineless wimp who obviously is a bottom by the way you are ready to bend over and take it while your rights are slipping away.
Be seeing you...
If a law is pointless or ineffectual, then surely there is also scant reason to repeal it by the way any administrative system works. Think Patriot Act or other examples in the tome that chronicles the unraveling of privacy or personal security we thought we signed up for.
If you want to travel without being searched, get a pilot license. Buy a plane. Go fly yourself. I've been searched exactly once during a border crossing when flying myself, and they wanted to make sure I wasn't bringing fruit into the country. As a side benefit, I've never been arbitrarily selected for a bribe and told to pay up or go to jail as I was when I drove once (until they found out I could understand him perfectly, and understand the car repair receipt he was waving at me, saying it was a warrant for my arrest).
"You want me to get a ficken netbook just cus Team America are going to save the ficken day by taken peoples laptops?"
No, I want you to get a netbook because you have a laptop with data that is so valuable you can't afford to lose or recreate it. Laptops get lost/stolen/dropped every day. It doesn't make sense to carry inportant unreplacable information around if you don't have to. A $300 netbook is a nominal expense compared with the costs of travel.
Really though, what software is impossible to backup? At the least you could make a DD copy of your drive and leave that at home. Then you can do a full restore to a new identical laptop if encessary and it won't ever know the difference.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
I don't want to piss around waiting for my laptop to be given back (I never said anything about important data/backups). And i don't, along with a lot of work mates, we just don't go to USA anymore.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!