Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Affirms Warrantless Computer Searches
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"Laptop computers and other digital devices carried into the US may be seized from travelers without a warrant and sent to a secondary site for forensic inspection, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week. The ruling is the second in less than a year that allows the US government to conduct warrantless, offsite searches of digital devices seized at the country's borders. A federal court in Michigan last May issued a similar ruling in a case challenging the constitutionality of the warrantless seizure of a computer at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Several other courts, including the Ninth Circuit itself, have ruled that warrantless, suspicion-less searches of laptops and other digital devices can take place at US border locations."
"Suspicion-less searches" comes in handy
"We had your laptop searched for no reason, we never suspected you of doing anything wrong..."
This way, nobody could ever complain of discriminatory treatment based on race, nationality, religion, etc.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
What could you possibly find on a computer that couldn't also be transfered digitally over the internet using encryption?
...and that's more true every day.
I would not believe this if I were not seeing it.
How does this differ from warrant-less searches of anything else when crossing US Borders (pockets, glove box, trunk, luggage, etc)?
If you are traveling with a laptop, why on earth wouldn't you be using full disk encryption? It seems like you'd want that for plenty of other reasons too, like to protect your data in the event of theft of the laptop. And this full disk encryption would also protect against such "inspections".
It's 2011, not 1991.
I wonder how this will play into the current trend for more cloud based computing. Can you be compelled to give out your passwords to your servers if your computer is seized and searched? I could see Chrome OS getting very popular among anyone who needs to take a laptop across boarders who doesn't want Uncle Sam to see their illegal/private/sensitive data.
I travel with a laptop for remote access to business stuff, even on holidays (emergencies only, of course). Because of travel to the USA I've specifically bought a EEE that could be confiscated without too much out of pocket expense, but it's a real pain to operate some things on the tiny 10" screen instead of my purpose-bought Dell.
Does this seriously bother any other /.-ers? Having to double my personal hardware just to accommodate US travel is a pain in the ass for the overwhelming number of legitimate travelers, and there's nothing that couldn't get-into/leave the country via the internet anyway. Seems like there's no benefit at all to this nonsense.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
can someone explain what justification they are offering for this decision? besides what seems to be the only obvious answer of simply allowing the law enforcement to do whatever they please?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I work for a subsidiary of a large defence contractor and we've been told via an IT Security Policy announcement never to keep work data locally on our devices (laptops, phones etc.) when crossing any border. We are to connect to the VPN after we get there and download it if we need it. This is even the case if the whole point of going overseas is to demonstrate an a purely IP-based/digital product. This policy was announced at the start of the year, I wonder if it's related.
Just take a 'traveling' computer on overseas visits. And 'fly casual'. You don't want to attract too much attention. Always give them something. It's like when being robbed, you want to have just enough in your wallet to satisfy the assailant, so he'll leave..
And please, don't think for a second they can't see your 'hidden' partitions. You're only deluding yourselves..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
If you have to travel outside the US, make use of FTP, webmail, etc to move your sensitive data. And own a cheapass laptop that you don't mind getting confiscated.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We're almost there...
http://www.alternet.org/world/51150/?page=3
Then the Constitution needs to be fixed.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The problem is people who are still prepared to travel to the USA. You are the ones making this acceptable. You are the ones happy to bring your productivity and your coin into a country which should be ostracised until it stops treating visitors as criminals and returns to something resembling reasonable.
I gave up my business interests in the US following their slow bastardisation of the notion of rights after 2001. I made a personal loss, but I feel all the more human for it. And it serves its purpose. After all, no empire and no regime lasts forever - it will only be a matter of time before things become unbearable and people start standing up en masse. We must start making our stand one by one.
Why aren't you doing the same?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but before we all start quoting 1984...hasn't this kind of search always been legal in the United States?
"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration...Authorized by the First Congress (1789)"
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/18-border-searches.html
This guy may have been bad, but this ruling is just another step on the slope. CIA must love this though now they can target\flag interesting folks upon reentry to get a look at any data they want.
Great decision. Win-win for everybody. You don't want to come here, and we don't want you here.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
This is just wrong. The Declaration of Independence says: "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." It doesn't say "citizens", it says "men". The history buffs will remind me that the Declaration is not law, but we are straying pretty far from fundamental principals that were the bedrock of our country. Should the government be allowed to do this with H1B visa recipients? Folks trying to establish citizenship legally? The best way to avoid this quicksand is to never start getting into it!
does this mean they can take all of my luggage for no reason at all. The government needs to stop making rulings about digital ownership and the ownership of the physical hardware that is my laptop, just because it is convenient way to not give me the rights that i deserve. guess we will all have to run VM's and switch to thin client laptops. can't wait for the excuse for that one.
or health care.
I don't have an issue with Constitutional rights being restricted for those who are registered criminals. They broke the law, proved their untrustworthiness and now are having to contend with that... it's called consequences. However, there ARE no such clauses in the Constitution and until such exist this is unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of who the man is, what he's done and what they've found.
You can be stopped and searched anywhere within x number (I forget how many) miles of any US border.
Just try to not get stopped while traveling down near Mexico. There are road blocks, checkpoints, etc. where they can and will search your stuff, question you, etc. All without any suspicion of anything. Search Youtube for videos of confrontation between US citizens and the police in these areas.
I don't see why electronic equipment would be any different.
"Warrantless" may be necessary; the alternative is to detain people and their laptop for as long as it takes to get a warrant. "Suspicion-less" I have a real problem with; this sounds like an open invitation for agents to exercise their personal prejudices and punish anyone who doesn't kiss their ass. If you are going to confiscate something, you should as least be able to clearly state a reason for doing so.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Compress, encrypt, store in cloud, wipe with NSA quality shredding software all sensitive information from laptop, tablet, and cellphone before travel. Get to destinaltion. Download and reinstall such information on appropriate device(s). Anyone who is REALLY concerned about border searches, would be doing this already. So, only the stupid or careless get apprehended with inappropriate information on their mobile devices. Sounds like Darwin at work to me...
they don't even check for laptops or ask about them at the boarder when you drive though
The same rules apply to US citizens crossing the border into their own country. And no, we aren't fans of it either.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Just got a whole lot higher.
As someone who has visited the US more than 50 times since 1975 and spending more than 20 years working for a US Company, I have the greatest respect for its people. However the
things that various administrations are doing to your image & reputation abroad is not enticing me to visit anymore.
I went to central america last fall. 90% of the flights were routed via Miami. I was stuck as this was a trip that came about with no
notice (A family bereavement). The result was that I couldn't fly via Miami. I ended up flying to Trinidad and then taking two further
flights to get to my destination.
The next problem I had was that the US wanted a Visa for my dead brother in order to let his coffin pass through Miami.
Now how sick is that.
I paid the extra $1000 to fly him direct to Canada and thence to Europe. PErhaps they would want to conficate his coffin and take it somewhere for further examination as it passed through Miami?
And the Terrorists WON!!!!
:T:R:A:N:S:
From a Nova TV show the NSA gets a copy of all the data coming into and out of the US at the border routers.
every time a site is selected, it should be explicitly pointed out that this is the reason the US was not selected. Be sure to cc the US Chamber of Commerce, and the US Hotel and Airline lobbyists.
Customs officials need the right to inspect everything that goes through the border - if we are going to have a customs system at all. If a customs official finds a locked box you refuse to open, they should have the right to ship it off to the box-opening facility for further inspection. The case with the laptop is no different.
This, of course, comes in conflict with the desire for privacy. But if you're planning to argue that laptop searches are unconstitutional, you must conclude the same about customs searches in general. Most likely, customs searches are constitutional, or at least there is plenty of judicial precedent claiming so.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I like the searches, just that they are an inevitable part of the current setup.
But they can.
The part about searching for obvious contraband is understandable when crossing a border before entry is granted but it appears that all the legal headedness in these district courts suffer from selective ignorance since they ignore the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, especially the "unreasonable" working that is specifically included in it.
Also the key paragraphs of this article and decision deal with the transportation of equipment away from the border. This requires the taking of this equipment away from the person, which steps all over the seizure part since the equipment is taken away from the person.
On top of this "probable cause" is required for search and seizure so that little bit about "no heightened suspicion" is pure bullshit.
I think these Federal Judges need remedial education to go back and re-read the constitution in plain English.
Because bad guys will never get data across the border any other way.
America, the land of the "free!"
I thought I was supposed to be "secure in my effects and digital papers from unreasonable search and seizure". I would have thought that since we had a Digital Millenium act that it served to add Digital to that line from the constitution.
Then I woke up and remembered that only corporations and governments get rights these days.
about border search being different from search inside the country.
What it says is
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.
Doesn't even say "citizens". Just says "people". I.e., this whole thing about warrantless border searches is and always has been unconstitutional.
But I don't expect the Alice in Wonderland court to overturn it. They'll just point to the turtles going all the way down and say that's what they've balanced the world on, therefore one more turtle will be fine.
There are no rights in those zones. Those zones will be growing to encompass the entire country, soon.
Fight Spammers!
Hidden volumes FTW.
Excellent. The encryption sector can use the boost in business.
They dont call it the Ninth Circus for nothing
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
TrueCrypt (or BitLocker, PointSec, etc) allow you to encrypt your entire disk. If they get the hardware or hard drive, they'll have nothing but encrypted bits.
They could never decrypt the drive without the password. Of course, this is what'll really happen when they need your drive:
http://xkcd.com/538/
Of course, TrueCrypt does allow for plausible deniability if someone attempts to force you to reveal the encryption password:
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
If you read TFA, the guy was a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER in California according to TSA records.
WHOAH, how is that fact even relevant? Even convicted criminals have civil rights. Just because you find this guy personally repugnant doesn't mean that he isn't a person under the constitution.
Replace 'sex offender' with the word 'jew' and try to repeat your statement without sounding like a Nazi. Go on, I dare you.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Actually, encrypted files just shows that the user is protecting their data. Unencrypted files, however, shows that the user has no regard for safety.
You don't need to read the book to understand that warrentless search & seizure is the business of oppression, not liberty. All you need is a tiny bit of common sense, and the ability to look past the continuous blitz of propaganda and think for yourself (that's the hard part).
Considering the way the government is behaving today and the way the courts are acting, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional amendment is going to protect our property against unreasonable searches and seizures. But something like that would probably never get the 2/3 majority it would need in Congress.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There's actually a precedent for something similar, a few centuries ago: foreign sailors arriving in the US would have to line up and pull their pants down to be checked for STD's. One day the Europeans decided to do the same thing to American sailors arriving in Europe. It didn't take long for the US to stop the practice.
saraj.sun wrote:
"Laptop computers and other digital devices carried into the US may be seized from travelers without a warrant and sent to a secondary site for forensic inspection, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week. The ruling is the second in less than a year that allows the US government to conduct warrantless, offsite searches of digital devices seized at the country's borders. A federal court in Michigan last May issued a similar ruling in a case challenging the constitutionality of the warrantless seizure of a computer at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Several other courts, including the Ninth Circuit itself, have ruled that warrantless, suspicion-less searches of laptops and other digital devices can take place at US border locations."
should read "FORMER U.S.A."
--- You have NO rights !!!
Have a day.
Yours In Minsk,
Kilgore Trout, C.I.O.
The only reason you'd object to this is if you have something to hide.
Do you ?
Right, because no other countries do this. /s
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
Does the ruling regard tampering or changing?
Welcome, Comrades!
Welcome back to the Glorious Union of Soviet Corporatist Republics!
So border searches have always been legal. The Supreme Court has ruled before that you've no expectation of privacy at the border, and that nations have the right to secure their borders by searches. This has been pretty uncontroversial for a long time. However the thing is these searches were for security and for preventing smuggling and the like. So what they could do (and did) was check your bags, your car, etc for contraband and/or dangerous items. Then you were on your way.
Well laptops are different and make two new problems:
1) They are actually seizing them, with no evidence of anything wrong. In past searches they could look through your stuff for any reason or no reason at all, but if everything was fine, you went on your way. With laptops they claim the right to seize them, and hold them for an indefinite period. That is real different than a search. Imagine if at the border they took your bag and said "We are going to take this off to check. We won't tell you who gets to look at it or when you can have it back. We don't have any evidence there is anything wrong, but we are taking it anyhow."
2) Computers are like journals, or other personal writings in many ways and those were not searched/copied at the border. So while they could go through your bag and look for drugs, they couldn't take your personal papers, copy them, and read through them. They weren't allowed to pry in to any and every detail of your life, just check for security reasons or smuggling reasons. You can see how a laptop, particularly one that has e-mail stored on it, would be very similar to personal papers.
That's the issue here. Nobody is saying they can't have a look at the laptop to make sure it isn't a bomb, or hasn't had its innards removed and replaced with drugs. What they are saying is they shouldn't be able to take the laptop, hold on to it for an indefinite time, copy the data, hand it out to other federal agencies and not tell you who, and so on.
Visiting the US is like visiting a police state. It's better than a war zone, by a long shot, but its not appealing.
I feel bad that I don't get to see the great Americans I know but the border and the Neocon wonderland is off my list of destinations.
- and I'm just across the border in Canada. I can't imagine how many people won't pay to fly to there.
So lemme get this straight? A minimum wage animal working at the border can seize your laptop without due cause, and ship it off someplace else to be "investigated" , likely never to be seen again?
Sounds like a good scam to score a whole bunch of free laptops!
This is starting to sound like the jocks against the nerds all over again, taking your lunch money.
I've never heard of ANYONE ever getting their equipment back (Isn't Steve Jackson Games still waiting after Operation Sun Devil?) after it's been taken by the authorities, and even in the unlikely event you get it back, it won't be in useable condition. Think about all those cops shows where they gleefully cut apart someone's car looking for drugs. They will send your computer back in a envelope and all you'll see are little black and silver shavings.
Anyone who sings the Star Spangeled Banner at this point is just kidding themselves. Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Oy vey.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This is the one to ram the point home!
http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map
live in the orange? then this story applies to you!
they can search whatever the hell they want if you live there.
no warrant
no recourse
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Under the international treaty, NAFTA, signed by all participants, Canadian citizens still have their Canadian constitutional protections against such warrantless searches of their data.
Just saying.
The US Constitution states that international treaties overrule your local laws.
If you don't like it, don't sign treaties.
But get your hands off my Canadian citizen data!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You get to keep YOUR laptop!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Can you imagine being a business with sensitive material, and having your laptop confiscated by a foreign government? That can be "sent away" for who knows how long to a 3rd party for forensics? Makes me think twice. I can't wait until the first security breach where a device in their possession is compromised and leaked, oh the lawyers will feed then I tell ye. If you have branches in the US, not a big deal, just use local machines. If you don't or are doing business with other companies you have to watch out for key loggers and other software hi jinks going on in the background of whatever devices you happen to be using.
What is really stupid, is that anyone in the know, that really wants to transport electronic "bad stuff" across the US border, there are hella easier ways to do it than putting it on a freaking laptop and driving across the stupid border... like for real? How abouts I just send it to myself encrypted across the stupid internet for one.
So other than allowing the government to see what personal pirated mp3's and porn you have I don't see an actual point.
Wait for it... they will be transporting people (read YOU) to Guantanamo Bay because they can't search you at the airport -- because they don't have the necessary "inspectors and sophisticated forensic equipment" to search you there. And 4 months later, when they finally release you from detention (NOT arrest, there is a difference), you'll be stuck in Cuba with no passport, no clothes, and no money. And of course no phone.
Mock my words.
I've been to America twice.
First time, was student's exchange in 1999, where we flew into Canada and drove over the border into Detroit.
Result, entire bus emptied, told to stand in a line with our stuff in front of us, all asked 'is this yours?' as they searched our bags... we were all 15...
Second time, Chicago, computer game convention in 2007, got taken to the side and all my stuff searched and pulled out again, pat down, questioned etc.
Third time won't happen, America has been classed as a 'No go' now, its just getting more and more ridiculous, especially now with the full body scanners and hard drive inspections.
And I thought the UK was a 'friend of America', seriously would rather go to Russia that cross any American border again.
One method I used for this some years ago when I was traveling on business was to create a very lengthy random encryption key and have it written down only at my home (protected against searches by constitutional provisions not yet invalidated by court rulings) and sent to someone in the place to which I was traveling (who had no idea what it was, or even where it was once I got there). I NEVER MEMORIZED IT. Truly. It meant, of course, that my computer was useless en route, but it was secure from anyone's prying eyes because I could NEVER be forced to reveal information I did not possess. Not that I was ever stopped for that or anything else. Had a LOT more trouble when I travelled with my wife, because she was disabled and had to ride a mobility scooter, which needed special security precautions.
Make your laptop a netbook. With just the operating system, a web browser, and a method of getting online. Your data is on your own webserver, your own personal 'cloud' with all of your super-duper secret stuff, encrypted and password protected. If you are worried about your data getting hacked online, keep it encrypted on dvd with you, and label it 'data disk'. If they want it, let them have it, but explain to them that its just raw binary data. Actually the best would be to keep your data online, encrypted, and keep one or two floppy disks with you acting as one-time pads. They won't be able to get anything out of the one time pads, won't be able to access your online site without a one-way hash password, and all the data the site provides has to be run past the one time pad in order to be readable. Have fun kiddies.
Join up and donate to the EFF people.
... will have Guns.
... So only Criminals have the need for encryption.
Give me a break!
I don't think anything short of a Constitutional amendment is going to protect our property against unreasonable searches and seizures
Why would a new amendment make any more difference than the ones we already have?
The border patrol stops cars within 100 miles of the North and South borders, claiming authority. Will they be able to inspect bits too?
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
All the comments I've read focus on laptops, but let's not forget that this readily includes smart-phones, PDAs, tablets, iPods, flash drives, Kindles, portable DVD players, Gameboy/PSP, digital cameras....anything with memory/storage. Heck it might even apply to programmable calculators and your uber-cool, geek-chic calculator watch.
Uh huh. A few centuries ago would be 65 years before the United States declared independence, and a full 73 years before the revolutionary war ended.
Methinks you troll.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
As a fellow Canadian, I'm very interested in the source of your claim. Care to point to the relevant NAFTA article?
BTW, it's completely up to the discretion of the US Customs agent whether to permit you to enter their country or not. You could be denied entry for no reason at all. You will certainly be denied entry for refusing to hand over your computer. You don't have a right to enter US, it's a privilege.
Terrorists and doctors. Patient info is protected under Federal law and is a quagmire even to reveal it to law enforcement. It's practically illegal not to have it encrypted.
Considering the way the government is behaving today and the way the courts are acting, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional amendment is going to protect our property against unreasonable searches and seizures. But something like that would probably never get the 2/3 majority it would need in Congress.
You mean something like:
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.
Already there, they just ignore it.
kjb
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
The current wording of the 4th Amendment SHOULD already protect us from these kinds of searches/seizures. The government is simply ignoring it, and We The People are allowing it to happen.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech", in his TECHNICAL BLUNDERS, & more (regarding HOSTS files):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student)...
Worst part of ALL, here?
Hairyfeet just clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for:
---
1.) ADDED Reliability (vs. DNS going down, or being 'poisoned', & even DNSBL (DNS Block Lists))
2.) ADDED "layered" Security online (vs. known bad sites &/or servers (botnet C&C) + maliciously scripted adbannners by BLOCKING them out)
3.) ADDED Speed (not loading adbanners, and hardcoding your fav. sites into it)
4.) Even more ADDED 'anonymity' online (vs. DNS request logs)
(Even server admins might NOT mind having the load on their DNS servers lightened up also, bonus!)
---
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
True, but: the US Constitution also states that only Congress can enter into treaties with foreign governments.
Last I checked, a hell of a lot of treaties the US has supposedly entered into have had only the President sign them, not Congress, making them simply unenforceable and officially not even agreed to.
LOL: captcha is "taxpayer"
You mean something like:
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.
That's PERFECT! You mind if I use that language for the proposed amendment?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Not sure if an amendment would help, given that there already is one, with very clear language, and they just ignore it.
Given the changes to the Commerce Clause after 140 years, the entire country would disappear.
Shouldn't there be a 100-mile circle around every airport?
That searches made at the border
The point is, that the word border is being redefined to cover places where 66% of US citizens live. Basically this means that officials can seize the personal possessions of most Americans without any legal recourse at all.
Perhaps you believe that these officials can be trusted. Perhaps that is the case today. However, there is a reason why "malfeasance" is a word in the dictionary.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
When you travel outside of the Peoples Republic of Amerika do not bring your "regular" laptop, instead bring the cheapest netbook you can buy, one that can be made to boot from SD, leave the remove the original HDD and set it aside replacing it with a blank unit that you format as a data drive (Truecrypt) put a bootable Linux (http://www.pendrivelinux.com/) on a SDHC card boot from it and save your data to the Truecrypt HDD, now when you are ready to return to the US mail the HDD to a remailing service in Canada (wherever) to be sent home (alternative locations) mount the original HDD (the cherry one) back in place, remove the SD card and put it in your junk pocket!
Take my netbook, please!
And when they return it to you, sell it on Craigslist, it's been compromised!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
They broke the law, proved their untrustworthiness and now are having to contend with that... it's called consequences.
I appreciate what you are saying. Without turning this into a black-and-white issue, consider the following points:
+ A reasonable proportion of people from disadvantaged minorities end up with wrongful convictions. For example, DNA testing showed that 15 of 205 death-row inmates were innocent.
+ There is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, if you go into a meeting expecting someone to be unreasonable, they more likely will be, and vice-versa. That is a measurable empirical fact of life. Our expectations of each other are powerful influences.
I would not advocate that convicted criminals should get a free pass. Obviously it is an imperfect world.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
travel alot in and out of the US, aside from the long flights, I had (and so did everyone else) to put up with insane waits at immigration and customs along with the most retarded questions I have ever seen ("are you a terrorist?", "are you coming to the US to commit crimes?"); eventually I got a green card, which somehow required a medical visit that i found very invasive of my privacy. somehow the green card didn't make any of stuff any easier.
Looking back now, I can't believe I put up with that sort of bullsh*t for as long as I did, I had no real incentive to, I could easily have picked to work in good ol' Europe.
This doesn't surprise me at all, forensic'ing laptops and such, I am too numb to America foreign policies by now, just another reason to never set foot in the US again.
Great idea!
I would propose maybe the following wording:
I follow a few people who have had this happen to them, some real smart people (read: were persons of interest with FBI investigations into Wikileaks). And the best thing they did was just say no. How? By not taking data through an airport. Hand them empty, wiped devices and just smile and say you don't have any data to declare.
I8-D
In other words: Stay the fuck out of the USA.
If they take a pocket knife you forgot to remove, or a flask of water because it's 110ml instead of the allowed 100ml or whatever other insanity they have at the airports these days - that's an inconvenience, but nothing major.
If they take your notebook, that can easily be a 2000-3000 US$ loss.
Oh, you think you're going to get it back? Certainly you should. It just might take weeks or months, and by then you're out of the country again, and it might, just might be all kinds of hassles. And then there's plenty of stories of stuff seized that was never returned, usually on some pretext.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They're free to search my laptops for bombs. They're even free to try to decrypt the data on them. If they succeed, I'll know that I should switch to something stronger.
What would be the point? Whatever new amendment can be ignored just as easily as the the original bill of rights. In this situation, there is simply no reasonable way that computers shouldn't be covered by the 4th amendment, digital documents carried by computer should not be legally distinct from other kinds of papers and effects.
You wrote:
"You don't have a right to enter US, it's a privilege."
It's not a privilege. It's more like a punishment..
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-07-at-11.43.34-AM.png
ENOUGH SAID...
Considering the way the government is behaving today and the way the courts are acting, I don't think anything short of a Constitutional amendment is going to protect our property against unreasonable searches and seizures. But something like that would probably never get the 2/3 majority it would need in Congress.
You mean something like:
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.
Already there, they just ignore it.
kjb
Hear, Hear! Since the existing constitution is not being followed, what would make a new amendment be any better.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
The actual opinion is published at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/30/09-10139.pdf . Pretty calm and sensible, actually. Search of laptops falls under border doctrine. Issue was whether border doctrine extended to a place 170 miles away, and over a period of time. The reason they shipped the laptop to a forensic facility was because they had a known sex offender with portions of his hard drive encrypted. Unlike a suitcase, which can easily be searched at the Port of Entry, an encrypted laptop cannot be. Pedophilic images are evidence of a crime against children. Where there are pictures of children being abused, there's a child who's been abused. Seeking and trading such images create demand for someone to abuse a child. The pedophile sought to have the evidence on his laptop suppressed. The Ninth District said No. From the opinion: "Today we examine a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit: whether the search of a laptop computer that begins at the border and ends two days later in a Government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away can still fall within the border search doctrine. The district court considered the issue to be a simple matter of time and space. It concluded that the search of property seized at an international border and moved 170 miles from that border for further search cannot be justified by the border search doctrine. We disagree. We find no basis under the law to distinguish the border search power merely because logic and practicality may require some property presented for entry—and not yet admitted or released from the sovereign’s control—to be transported to a secondary site for adequate inspection. The border search doctrine is not so rigid as to require the United States to equip every entry point—no matter how desolate or infrequently traveled—with inspectors and sophisticated forensic equipment capable of searching whatever property an individual may wish to bring within our borders or be otherwise precluded from exercising its right to protect our nation absent some heightened suspicion. Still, the line we draw stops far short of “anything goes” at the border. The Government cannot simply seize property under its border search power and hold it for weeks, months, or years on a whim. Rather, we continue to scrutinize searches and seizures effectuated under the longstanding border search power on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the manner of the search and seizure was so egregious as to render it unreasonable."
The current wording of the 4th Amendment SHOULD already protect us from these kinds of searches/seizures. The government is simply ignoring it, and We The People are allowing it to happen.
Funny what people will give up when they're scared.
What kind I wonder? The term has been diluted to meaninglessness by systematic abuse.
I have said this before, but it will bear repetition:
Your state or county registry of sexual offenders is easily accessible online.
It will be in no way pleasant - but an hour spent there will erase every fantasy the geek holds dear about who makes these lists and why.
The age of the victims will sicken you.
That I guarantee.
I suspect you were going for the dramatic effect of interpretation and not following any logic put forth by the amendment or courts in the rulings.
This matter has been settled fact in the courts for years before your father's father was even a gleam in hit's father's father's eye. The constitution protects you from unreasonable searches, not all searches. It does prescribe a way to get searched, but does not forbid reasonable searches.
The Very first congress of this nation passed a law allowing the unwarranted searches at borders. This was challenged in court some years later and the courts said that the right of sovereignty made it reasonable to search people and their things at the borders. This meant that the 4th amendment was not violated in these border searches. The only thing that has changed since then is the placement of the border and how wide it seems to be when concerning these searches.
A new amendment disallowing all searches or defining a border search would be followed and would be different. But they are not ignoring the existing constitution in this regard..
Are you saying the founding fathers were scared or something? I mean because they passed the first warrant-less search law for the borders back in the second session of the first congress of the US as a country.
The courts have chimed in saying it was within their rights to do so too.
If you want to call something a problem and attack it, at least have the decency or understanding what it is and how it got there first.
I suspect you were going for the dramatic effect of interpretation and not following any logic put forth by the amendment or courts in the rulings.
This matter has been settled fact in the courts for years before your father's father was even a gleam in hit's father's father's eye. The constitution protects you from unreasonable searches, not all searches. It does prescribe a way to get searched, but does not forbid reasonable searches.
The Very first congress of this nation passed a law allowing the unwarranted searches at borders. This was challenged in court some years later and the courts said that the right of sovereignty made it reasonable to search people and their things at the borders. This meant that the 4th amendment was not violated in these border searches. The only thing that has changed since then is the placement of the border and how wide it seems to be when concerning these searches.
A new amendment disallowing all searches or defining a border search would be followed and would be different. But they are not ignoring the existing constitution in this regard..
I agree with the first congress that searches and seizures at the border are "reasonable". I just don't agree with the "border" extending 100 miles inland, as the ACLU claims.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Because a "no fly" list is almost an elephant!
Look at it this way. Everyone in DC can have his computer taken and searched for no reason at all. Every politician using a computer working in DC is subject to this. Let that sink through their thick skulls and see how fast this gets overturned.
What happens if the TSA decide to instigate "random" seizures of laptops? If I had to visit the US on a business trip, it would be a nightmare for my business laptop to be *taken* by US authorities without cause or reason. This is simply unacceptable behaviour by a first world nation. Why do rational people allow these laws to stand? There are a whole host of reasons why this is outrageously invasive and unnecessary, not too mention what happened to the presumption of innocence? What if a device has commercially sensitive material on it? Or documents protected by privilege? What happens if material from a seized device is leaked onto the Internet? Can we sue the US Government for damages? If this is how the US is going to behave towards visitors, then you can count me out.
Great if this causes the pedophiles willies to shrivel up and fall off.
I'm tired of males demanding their "rights" when women and children have none.
Could a company sue anyone if its prototype device, full of undisclosed innovations was seized and subsequently leaked to the competitors?
the internet boarders are the same way. interception of a packet is not so obvious as one of the pocket.
Starting today I am plotting my escape from Amerika. It is no longer the country of freedom.
We already have an ammendment for that and it didn't help one bit. At this point it's going to require more extreme measures and perhaps some fatalities.
The problem is the word 'unreasonable' there. Us and the courts are interpreting that word very differently.
Court: It's perfectly reasonable for customs to impound and search at their leisure anything that might have terrorist or drug related material on it that crosses the border, or is suspected of crossing the border, so we'll just say they can impound any kit they like within 50 miles of the border. You know, for the safety of this great nation. And probably the children.
Us: WTF?
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
What would work is abolishing the Bill of Rights and abolishing the Constitution as it is.
We create a new Constitution that spells out explicitly that we have rights to everything we can possibly think of by default.
We then explicitly spell out our limitations. Such as that we have free speech, but not to the point at which it can cause physical harm or loss of life. Yelling fire in a theater, that type of stuff. There would not be many, just those that are fairly common sense and designed to promote a platform upon which a civilization is stable and prosperous. Don't kill people comes to mind.
Lastly we precisely define what government is, what it is supposed to accomplish, and that it is comprised of people duly elected. Constitutional Amendments from that point on would be to grant the government rights to effect its purpose. Require a 2/3rds vote of the entire United States.
Now if we did that then legislators could only make laws and regulations that are designed to enforce the limitations we all agreed on. Murder laws, libel laws, slander laws, property damage, fraud, that kind of stuff.
Basically turn the whole thing on it's head. Because right now we defined our rights. Government has been very successful in destroying and infringing upon those rights for quite some time.
There really is no point to the Bill of Rights and Constitution at this point. It's spirit is dead, the body is raped and mutilated, the champion that used to actually help the people is long gone in effective practice.
Ohhhh... P.S - Corporations are specifically defined as having no rights.
You're basically claiming that it is legal for the government to comply with the Constitution by selectively redefining the meaning of the words used by specific articles - to the point that said meaning is significantly beyond modern colloquial meaning, the original meaning at the time the article in question was written, or even basic common sense - so as to get the interpretation they want. It certainly is the established modus operandi - first they did it with "militia" to undermine the 2nd Amendment, then they did it to "interstate commerce" to turn the Commerce Clause into a carte blanche. But I'm pretty sure that any of the people who originally wrote or ratified the US Constitution would not imagine it in their wildest dreams, much less consider it lawful.
That's a great idea. How about something like this:
"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."
That would probably do it, right?
That's more or less what the current Constitution tried to do. In particular, the 10th amendment says the feds can't do anything not explicitly spelled out in the document, but the interstate commerce clause was judged to include anything that would possibly affect interstate commerce - which is basically everything. "Natural person" was somehow judged to mean not just humans but also corporations. Right were defined to be inviolable except in certain cases, but they have not been.
No doubt any replacement constitution would be vulnerable to having its language twisted as well, no matter how you wrote it.
No, I'm not saying anything at all. The courts have said it and the founding fathers who were in the first government of the United State of America who also most likely ratified the US constitution said it. And they didn't redefine anything, Unreasonable means the same thing then as now. Your constitutional protections is from unreasonable search, not all searches.
No, modern interpretations is more likely wrong. As I already pointed out, the first congress of the US and the courts already said X means X. You are the one with some new interpretation that says unreasonable means all now.
I think if you would follow what I said already and investigate it in the least, you never would have replied and you certainly would never have made this statement in it.
I do not disagree here except they chanced the interstate commerce clause meaning first then tried to redefine the meaning a militia. However, the issue of rightdfully interpreting the 4th amendment to be against unreasonable searches is something that was done in the second year this country existed and was uphelp by the courts just a little later. I hardly think they started assaulting the constitution and misinterpreted it when the very first government was seated and had that misinterpretation upheld by the courts for 90% or more of this nations existence.
I think you should pay attention to detail. Those were the very_people_who_created_the_entire_border_exception to the 4th amendment. It was a law created in the second session of the very first congress of the united states that was organized under this constitution. The law was signed by President George Washington, put into force, challenges several years later and upheld by the very first US Supreme Court that was seated.
This border exception is nothing new and has existed almost as long as this country has. Learn your history, or for fucks sake, at least read the opinions when the exceptions get upheld as they point to the specific parts you need to pay attention to.
I think your predecessor on this stream was being just a teensy bit sarcastic, or is that ironic at this point?
but only if you pay for it, and the chick wills it to you, and then, only still, maybe... hahahaha. They try harder when you have successfully paid them enough, lol, and they just want you outta their face, lol, for real. That's when they don't curb kick your scrawny noob ass and rob you, and then their pimp takes over (your behind) that is.