Slashdot Mirror
Device Security: How Border Searches Are Really Used
onehitwonder writes "Newly released documents reveal how the government uses border crossings to seize and examine travelers' electronic devices instead of obtaining a search warrant to take them, according to The New York Times' Susan Stellin. The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying. The documents come courtesy of David House, a fund-raiser for the legal defense of Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." A post at the ACLU blog (besides being free of NYT paywall headaches) gives more details, and provides handy links the documents themselves.
This isn't exactly shocking news.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
That's the problem with "law-free zone" at the border. I assume this is highly un-ethical but perfectly legal to do things like that?
The documents reveal what had been a mostly secretive process that allows the government to create a travel alert for a person (regardless of whether they're a suspect in an investigation), then detain that individual at a border crossing and confiscate or copy any electronic devices that person is carrying.
Can some fella convince me that the government here, is any different as compared to those other governments?
Ohh wait, those governments are not democratic but ours is...
We have known this for a long time, and the courts have no excuse for not knowing it either, which is why many of us no longer recognize the courts
Only reasons I see to examine everyone's electronic devices are:
A) keep privatized prison populations growing
B) revenue from confiscated electronics
C) revenue from war on drugs
I guess that's believable
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Does anyone really think that the government wouldn't invoke any available power to achieve it's ends?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
"It is clear from these documents that the search of David Houseâ(TM)s computers had nothing to do with protecting the border or with enforcing immigration laws"
Of course not. They had everything to do with fascism.
To play devil's advocate, is there some aspect of "Immigration Law" that would pertain to a US Citizen crossing the border with information deemed sensitive to national security?
Since the source of these alleged documents is someone who is defending treason, I don't see any reason I should believe these are in any way real.
Remind me to carry only devices that I can afford to lose when I travel abroad.
Plus a USB disk with a single file filled with output from a random-number generator.
If they seize the USB disk and waste their time trying to figure out what it means, they might just learn a lesson - sometimes random-looking data really is random data.
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.
I keep looking for an exception for the government's imaginary 100-mile no-constitution zone, and it's just not in there. What the customs service is doing is a crime.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If any police agency seizes anything and it's later legally forfeited or abandoned, it should not be used for the benefit of the seizing authority.
Either destroy it, or if it has some historical or other value that would make destruction not in the public interest, store or display it but do so in a way that there is no benefit to the agency that seizes it or auction it off and take the auction proceeds and have a bonfire.
Why? Because this will send a strong message to police agencies: If you are seizing items out of a motivation for financial gain, forgetaboutit.
The same "throw a bonfire" principle should go for all fines and for all "court costs" that are in excess of reasonable and actual costs, where "reasonable and actual" are determined by an entity that is truly independent of and preferably antagonistic to the court in question.
Note - for reasons of safety, shredding or other non-flammable forms of destruction are usually preferable to a bonfire when destroying cash.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You insensitive clods.
So instead of giving it to the border patrol, you tell them to get there own copy from the NSA.
There, fixed that for you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
*Her* name (and gender) is whatever the fuck *she* wants to call *herself* and be referred to as. That some "official" document says otherwise is irrelevant.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
The exception is an exceedingly narrow definition of what constitutes "unreasonable".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Fuck the government
voters are not the problem.
You are mistaken. Voters absolutely have the power and they squander it. Folks who say that money controls politics are mistaken. Money is just a tool to persuade those who have not made up their mind or are wavering in their commitment. The true political currency is ***votes***. This is easily proven, if a voter is resolute no amount of expensive TV ads can change their mind. Two examples. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Association of Retire Persons (AARP). These are two of the most successful lobbying groups in American politics. Sure politicians appreciate their financial contributions but that is not the true source of power for these groups. Their true source of power are their members who do show up on election day and vote. A group that can deliver ***voters*** is more powerful than a group that can only deliver money.
The primary failing of voters is their party loyalty. If you are loyal to a particular party then that party can ignore you. They have your vote, they need do nothing to receive your vote. Similar story for a candidate. If he or she votes contrary to your wishes, yet you remain loyal because of a stance on some particular wedge issue, then he or she may ignore you, the wedge issue (guns, abortion, gay rights, etc) gets your vote so you may be ignored on anything else.
If voters showed no loyalty to a candidate and voted only on how well the candidate supported all the issues that a voter was concerned about, and voted for the other candidate if the incumbent falls short, then after a few cycles politicians will get the message and be reminded as to who is in charge, the voter. Again, the ultimate political currency is the vote, nothing is more valuable. Politicians will do whatever they need to do in order to get that vote and attain and more importantly retain elected office. Even in a D and R dominated environment always voting out candidates who severely disappoints you will eventually make candidates more accountable. Lobbyists and PACs can only save their butt if voters put aside their disappointment.
Lobbyists and PACs successfully get voters to put aside their disappointment by demonizing the opponent. Yet you claim the D and R parties/candidates are largely the same, different only cosmetically. If so then there is little risk in voting for the "other" candidate. Yet constantly voting for the "other" candidate in response to a disappointing candidate can restore accountability to the voter.
... the system, being rigged to ONLY allow D or R to get in, is the problem ...
More than D and R appear on the ballots, voters ***choose*** to vote primarily for D and R.
... people like you keep perpetuating the myth that american voting system matters at the national level ...
Voters ***choose*** what candidates will be representing each party in the national elections during primary elections. Voters have ***chosen*** increasing polarizing candidates in both the D and R parties. Voters have ***chosen*** not to support moderate candidates in the primaries and in the general elections.
... it does not. stop being stupid, ok? the sooner we remove this myth, the sooner we can get on with fixing THE SYSTEM.
The myth is that "voters are not to blame". As long as we have a one person one vote system voters are absolutely in charge. As long as voters are loyal to parties and/or vote for a candidate because of a wedge issue then voters can be ignored. If a voter is loyal to a party because of its platform or stance on an issue then that voter can be ignored, the party already has their vote and the candidate need do nothing for that voter.
What is stupid is failing to recognize that ***votes*** are the ultimate currency of politics, that money is just a tool to
I believe they call it the Patriot act.
It has been a decade or more since you(we) had any "constitutional" rights.
you know terror, thinking of the children, ect.
I think that the real crime has happened at a much higher level than the mouth breathers at customs.
-- Sig under construction...
It's time to impeach obama. It's the best way for citizens to send a message to gov't that we will not accept these programs. Not just impeach, but impeach in the house, convict in the senate, and remove from office.
To do so, repubs need to win the senate in 2014. So anybody who cares about their civil rights, regardless of political persuasion (liberal, conservative, republican), needs to support and donate to republican candidates in the 2 or 3 swing states in the next election. Nate Silver knows which states these are.
Disclosure: I am a dem and voted for Obama in the last two elections. but I'm disgusted at his actions. He took an oath in front of the entire nation to defend the constitution. Time to go.
horrifying news about civil rights, but obama shouldn't sweat it because new iphones are being announced in an hour so everybody's attention will swing to that.
Sorry bro, the weewee between his legs says otherwise.
We built the largest military alliance in history, and built a massive fleet of weapons capable of destroying all life on the planet because we said that the idea that you could live in a state where you had no privacy was inherently wrong.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
One of the things the parties do cooperate in is making sure that no third party ever gets influential enough to threaten the duopoly at the federal level. They keep campaign spending high to maintain a financial barrier entry, and make sure that there is no media coverage for competitors by shunning any media organisation that acknowledges third parties or independents exist.
The R and D parties do no such thing. Voters do this. When voters have shown sufficient interest in a 3rd party candidate the media gives that 3rd party candidate coverage and access. In 1992 Ross Perot was leading the presidential race at one point with 39% of likely voters, an 8% lead over incumbent George Bush and a 14% lead over Bill Clinton. He not only participated in the debates but was considered by many in the media to have won the first debate. After a severely f'ed up campaign he still received 19% of the popular vote.
I've been wondering if the OpenBSD CDs I got in the mail are the same ones they mailed me. Seems like they're all mailed from the same place; wouldn't be too hard for the American Stasi to swap them out for compromised ones, once they got it set up.
For some bizarre reason OpenBSD doesn't sign their releases. Way to throw us under the bus, Theo.
we said that the idea that you could live in a state where you had no property was inherently wrong.
FTFY
The "border search exception" has been well vetted legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception (Note that the ACLU's implication that this exception extends to 100 miles from the border is incorrect: http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html) But I would guess this search exercise does more harm than good. It can be easily circumvented (encrypted data over networks), so the question is empirical: Have criminals adapted to the law yet, in which case it becomes useless, and detrimental to the innocent (mostly for psychological reasons, but also for practical reasons if the government were to abuse the info it obtains).
I am a US citizen and travel out of the country fairly frequently. The work I do is "innocent" and "I have nothing to hide" but I do interact with "foreigners" and with the government random collection of metadata and "six degrees of separation", I could end up in this situation and considerable inconvenience (or worse).
I've been thinking of using a Chromebook which I could wipe before crossing the border.
Any ideas?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The "treason" charge didn't seem to happen and Manning was certainly never convicted of that. Oliver North didn't get charged for treason for selling weapons to a terrorist group that had killed over a hundred US Marines only a year prior, selling them via a declared enemy of the USA no less. Manning doesn't even show up on the scale.
I'm a Canadian and a lot of my friends travel to the US regularly. Occasionally they will be pulled in for secondary inspection, where they are told to get out of their vehicle but to leave all electronic devices in the car. They are then taken to a room where they can no longer see their car, told to wait about 30 minutes and then eventually released.
I'm wondering, are they using this as an opportunity to search the electronic devices?
Did someone remove the right to decide your own name too? They're falling so thick and fast now, I may have missed it.
You have the right to decide whatever name you want to be called by. I have the right to form an opinion of you based on that name. If I really hate your name, I may choose not to use it, but that won't stop it being your name. That's as far as our respective rights go.
Gender identification is a bit more involved. But declaring it a "silly whim" just shows you know nothing about it.
So in what way is that "proof" of the USA being nicer?
Perot solved the spending problem by throwing his own wealth into the campaign - no-one not a billionaire could hope to do what he did.
Perot's wealth may have jump started his campaign but it was his message and how it was received by the voters that made him a viable candidate. With today's social media it is easier than ever for a 3rd party to get his candidacy off the ground. Recent 3rd party candidates have failed because of their message, it didn't connect with many voters. Unlike Perot who had a message that initially connected with voters on a very large scale.
If it were merely a question of money Donald Trump would have been a viable candidate. Money helps, but it takes a lot more than money.
The next time I have to travel across a border, I need to remember to leave the real laptop at home and bring the old & busted. I want to see them try and get data off of it. Maybe I'll even pull the hard drive.
Gender and sex are 2 different things medically. Don't let that stop you from being misinformed though. It's your right as a red blooded American to speak your mind, and prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The smarter move for them is to clone your device onto their hardware and give it back to you. No matter what you do, you're still owned, since presumably whatever they give you back has extra stuff (memory/software/hardware) to make sure they have access to your information and possibly remote access to the device.
This wouldn't be something trivial they would do for random people getting the standard cavity search, but for select targets it wouldn't be impossible. Surely the NSA has the leverage with Apple, Samsung and other makers to either make this easy for the NSA or the raw horsepower in terms of resources to do this themselves.
The thing I find oddly comforting about the whole NSA scandal is that I no longer "worry" about monitoring. I just assume that NOTHING is secure from the NSA and everything is cracked, exploitable and compromised. There just isn't anything you can call "private" anymore.
As far as I can tell, this was all approved by congress through various legislation after Sep. 11 and then (rubber-stamped) approval by FISA courts. What are you saying is grounds for impeachment?
*note - I am NOT a supporter of the massive surveillance of U.S. citizens.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
I think it is already known that what is happening is unconstitutional. The question is what you are going to do about it.
Look at your standard kid or dog raising show. If you forbid them to take a cookie and they still do it and you do nothing, they will take another cookie. Telling them not to take it does not impress them, because there is no reaction to their action.
What is going on now is telling the kids in a STERN voice they should not take that cookie. And what happens? They take the cookie and laugh in your face while doing it. The next step will be yelling "Wait till your (other) dad/mom comes home." and he also does nothing and both of you are yelling.
At one moment you will explode and take away the cookie by force and perhaps even (out of frustration) slap the kid.
If you compare it to the real world, the last part is called a revolution.
The reason all this is happening is because the kid/government does not have any respect. There are no incentives NOT to do what they are doing.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
> I keep looking for an exception for the government's imaginary 100-mile no-constitution zone, and it's just not in there.
"unreasonable"
"Animal Farm" anybody? It was not supposed to be about the U.S.A...
Infect your machine with a fun worm or virus before you travel.... then use them to propagate the virus. If they do it properly, it will not affect them. I never expect that to be the case. Of course then you are left with a virus laden machine, but hey, the things you need to do to mess with the government... Doubt that is even possible, but seems like something fun to do. "I recommend that you not to connect my computer to your network".
I can scream all day that I'm actually a dragon. But at the end of the day all I've really proven is I'm mentally disturbed.
No, No. I'm stopping this thread as it's gotten too silly.
American liberty and freedom was a great dream. Bush and Obama have been the horrible nightmare. Big brother has never been bigger and Fort Knox has been pillaged .
Stopping him and imaging the devices without probable cause may be an unreasonable search.
Keeping the devices for a month is probably an unreasonable seizure.
(Unless there is a specific reason why keeping the devices is likely to be necessary once they have an image.)
Not giving him an image when they take the devices is for sure an unreasonable seizure of his ability to use the data on the devices.
If they have the capability to image the device on site for the investigation, they have the capability to make an additional copy for the owner so he is not deprived the use of the data for the month it took to get the device back to him. (There is no issue of preventing the govt access to the information. The burden on the investigator to make a second copy seems much less that the inconvenience to the subject to not have immediate access to his data.)
case 1 is about reasonable from a standpoint of necessary to get the information for a theoretically critical investigation.
(If it wasn't time critical, they could/should/would have used the normal, get a search warrant method, to get the same information without unnecessary drama at the airport.)
cases 2 and 3 are about reasonable from a technical standpoint to avoid unnecessarily harassing the subject.
case 1 is unfortunately something for a court to decide.
cases 2 and 3 seem self-evident
The next step is the colour of law for http://www.flyingmag.com/news/feds-say-pilots-have-no-rights
If you stay in the USA but fly in a "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" you may get to enjoy a full "ramp check".
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Well, yes Chelsea can use whatever name he wants. But it's still incorrect to apply feminine pronouns to a man, regardless of what self-image issues he may have. I may think for example that I'd quite like to spend the rest of my life as a cat, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously.
I do wonder, however, if in this case he's trying to set a background for an insanity defence if he were to find himself in court.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Name: yes.
Gender: Citation needed
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
It bugs me when people suggest or follow through with using their write-in vote on fictional characters others who aren't even eligible to serve. Micky Mouse can't be president no matter how many people vote for him. That is the very definition of a wasted vote.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I agree with the sentiment but history does not. A major component of the Cold War was getting people to sacrifice liberties for protection against foreigners. The McCarthy witch hunts certainly violated the idea the sanctity of privacy. The theft of the Communist Party member lists certainly violated the principles of democracy.
The conflation of the state and the people is a core tenant of Communism, Cold War America, and War on Terror America.
What actual practical difference do you think it makes referring to someone as he or she? I mean actual real-life difference to your life, society, and everything? I can see some difficulties that may arise if you ever met, and one or other decided you wished a relationship. Most people have their own particular tastes where he/she might cause confusion. But do you really think you're likely to have that occur with you and Chelsea? I mean, you can dream, but don't pin any hopes on it.
Your example of a cat is laughable. Whether he or she, Manning remains a person. What gender of person is an irrelevant detail to 99.999% of all people. Claiming to be a different species isn't anything like as irrelevant.
What utter rubbish. Gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of people, you say? Do you actually know anyone of the opposite gender to you? Of course both genders should have equal rights, but both are not equal. Those are very, VERY different things.
Let me guess, you're a man who wants to have babies. Or perhaps have just been brainwashed by years of feminism (the girlie version of mysogeny I mean, not the positive movement to maintain women's rights).
No, the cat example is spot on, just as if it were a cardboard box or a banana. The point is, you can pretend all you like to be something you are not, but that doesn't make it so.
Perhaps you're thinking of the very few documented cases where people are born with biological ambiguities, but that's rather unlikely to be the case with Mr Manning.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
"Just bring any of the really good, second hand laptops with OSX, Win 7/8 or Linux."
that's right.. bring your 35mm film camera and a bunch of film in one of those lead bags. And a paper notebook, and a pen.
This is exactly what most big companies are doing. You get a "travel laptop" to take which is basically brand new and has nothing other than the usual load of software. When you return, they reimage it and give it to the next traveler.
And after Perot happened, the parties took complete control of the debates so that they can exclude any third party. No third party will ever be allowed into the debates again.
No, 3rd party candidates are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. A good 3rd party candidate with a good message in this day of social media could do that. The voters are in control. If the voters show interest the 3rd party is in.
I didn't say "Gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of people". I said Manning's gender is irrelevant to 99.999% of all people. So I'll just pass on most of that strawman you've constructed there.
Manning is not pretending to be something she's not. She is a person who prefers to be addressed and identified as feminine. That is who she is. That is 100% true and accurate. The physical nature of her various bits are of no interest or relevance to me, and very unlikely to ever be, so I'm fine with going along with that. It makes no difference to me.
So... you'd be fine calling Chelsea a 72 year old from Uganda if he wanted? After all, that would then be his age and country of origin, right? Okay, got it.
If you want to bring up logical fallacies, please feel free to point out some more (actual ones this time), because I'm really not seeing any difference between your claim and the above reductio ad absurdum.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
No, I wouldn't be fine describing Chelsea as a 72 year old from Uganda. Apart from it being factually inaccurate, her nationality plays a significant part in her current fame and why I've heard of her. So it matters.
But should a 72 year old from Uganda ever, for whatever reason, demand that as her name, I suppose I might humor her.
Do you think this is likely?