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.
I would not believe this if I were not seeing it.
You would be surprised how many non-slashdotters do not think of it. Do not assume that because it is obvious to you it is to everybody.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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?
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.
Then the Constitution needs to be fixed.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
That's okay. In five years, computers will probably be shipping with full disk encryption enabled by default anyway. The risk of data theft and identity theft from unencrypted laptops walking away is simply too great.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"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.
...at which point they'll pass a law making it a crime.
No sig today...
Easier to require a government accessible back door. To stop the terrorists.
This isn't about being stupid or careless and getting apprehended with inappropriate/illegal information.
This is about them being able to confiscate your laptop, digital camera, phone, and pretty much damned near anything ... on a whim, without suspicion, and without recourse.
Some jackass of a border guard who is having a bad day or doesn't like my haircut can decide to basically appropriate my laptop and anything else he pleases, on a whim, with no grounds, warrant, suspicion, or defensible reason.
If you think that's Darwinism, you're a fool. If you think this is the sign of a free society, you're a bigger fool. This smacks more of banana republics and the stereotype of "papers please" and other crap from the Communist Bloc countries in the 80s.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"The Declaration of Independence" is a letter to the King of England. Telling him we will not pay tax on your tea :) The Constitution is law.
PS. In this context, and in the passing of time, we have learned
Men == Women Lets not start all that...
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.
It's not always that easy. The Brazilian authorities enlisted the aid of the FBI in cracking the encryption on the hard drive of banker Daniel Dantas, who was suspected of money laundering and attempting to bribe law enforcement. Despite five months of work by Brazil and about twelve months by the FBI, they couldn't get into his drives protected by TrueCrypt using AES-256 and good, long passwords. He was eventually sentenced to ten years in prison, but only on the bribery charges. The money laundering case couldn't proceed without the data on the drives.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
They dont call it the Ninth Circus for nothing
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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!
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.
a) It's plausibly deniable due to how a Truecrypt volume masks itself
I just wanted to point out that, while they cannot detect if a Truecrypt hidden partition exists on the system partition, they can tell that the system partition is encrypted with Truecrypt.
http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability
also note that, for system encryption, the first drive track contains the (unencrypted) TrueCrypt Boot Loader, which can be easily identified as such
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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.
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
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?
Some dystopian states forces you to divulge the password. US doesn't have such draconian laws yet, but at the currently rate at which our civil liberties are getting eroded, I'd give it 10 more years. Or another Bush, whichever comes first.
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
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
Great idea!
I would propose maybe the following wording:
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.
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?