Border agents can search/copy contents of laptops w/out cause, federal judge says

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,622
0
0
And after you don't cough up the key/password, you are probably going to be sitting there a lot longer. That or the agent will take it, call a tech, and be provided backdoor access in a jiffy.

It seems like almost everyday we hear of a court decision like this, or of backdoors in software, radio receivers in USB cables, more Snowden leaks of NSA slides, .etc. It is really depressing and harshing my chi.

I am very worried about the long term psychological impact to our country if this continues. I am sure many people are internalizing a lot of strong feelings, and that can only go on for so long before bad things happen.

What do you think of the collective psychological impact of news like this that comes every day, and what it will mean in 10 to 20 years?

You can set up a hidden volume within an encrypted volume.

Make the first PW: I'm too sexy for my own good! 321#123

And the second: Sexy me owned the fascists this time! 123#321


Fill up the first volume with selfies.

Fill up the second volume with naked selfies.

Win/win.
 
Last edited:

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,230
4
81
I agree that this seems reasonable to me. And encrypted drives should be seized if the owner doesn't provide a password.

Coming into the country isn't the same thing as being in your home or walking down the street, which are the places were search is unreasonable under the Constitution.
If I had a book on me that is written in a language only I knew (possibly by use of cryptography), would I be forced to translate it for them?

There was one ruling where a defendant was forced to decrypt his drive based on the metaphor that encryption was like a lock and key, physically, this is far from the case, and I would have no problem calling out a judge for making such a ruling based on a metaphor.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Americans wanting more government are in the majority. This is what more government looks like. Inevitably. Government powerful enough to take things from others and give them to you is also going to take things from you.

Though honestly I can see Tom's argument as well. Entering the country is a special situation and if normal rights applied, they could not search me or my luggage without cause. Though it's worth pointing out that customs searches were about maximizing government revenue long before they were about safety.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I agree that this seems reasonable to me. And encrypted drives should be seized if the owner doesn't provide a password.

Coming into the country isn't the same thing as being in your home or walking down the street, which are the places were search is unreasonable under the Constitution.

You two are just not getting it. CBP's purpose is preventing contraband, illegal immigrants, and terrorists from entering the country. The digital contents of a computer are only tangentially within that purview, and definitely not to the extent of needing to seize a person's computer and copying its contents. It's BS to argue that just because you're entering the country you give up all of your privacy.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,939
190
106
Whatever risks are posed by people bringing things into the country on laptop hard drives, I think they're worth it to retain some personal privacy and freedom here. Just how long do they expect you to wait while they inspect your entire hard drive btw?

Several weeks? A filmmaker Poitras is continuously given special treatment at border airports.
"She has had her laptop, camera and cellphone seized, and not returned for weeks, with the contents presumably copied. On several occasions, her reporter’s notebooks were seized and their contents copied"
"They sometimes keep her detained for three to four hours (all while telling her that she will be released more quickly if she answers all their questions and consents to full searches)"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Border-She-Has-Filmed-Three-of-My-NSA-Clients
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I agree that this seems reasonable to me. And encrypted drives should be seized if the owner doesn't provide a password.

Coming into the country isn't the same thing as being in your home or walking down the street, which are the places were search is unreasonable under the Constitution.

Let's do full body cavity searcles on all people too. I mean everyone, because you never know.

Seizing hard drives if passwords not given? Where is that in the law?

Bin Laden could not have hoped for a tenth of what he got.
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,318
124
106
This is the reason I've been using an encrypted harddrive for the last couple of years.

I travel to the US fairly often, and I don't want them looking through my personal files.

It hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it will, but it's a simple low cost precaution to take.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This is the reason I've been using an encrypted harddrive for the last couple of years.

I travel to the US fairly often, and I don't want them looking through my personal files.

It hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it will, but it's a simple low cost precaution to take.
See, I would think that would be worse. Agents would seldom spend the time to look through your personal files, but an encrypted hard drive would trigger interest.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
In a way this makes me sad, but it is technically not illegal. When coming across the border, you aren't on US soil yet. Even when flying in. Until you pass that customs check point, you are in international territory and not bound by normal US laws. This is sort of why the US government has been using things like Guantanamo Bay for captives. Having captives in a location that is not US soil, they aren't bound by the laws that protect those captives the same way as they would be on US soil.

So the judge is correct that the 4th amendment doesn't protect laptop from being seized and search without a warrant when coming across a border. Anything and everything can be searched.

No the copy part..... that I am a bit more miffed about.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
For those preaching TrueCrypt, I'd go in the direction of an additional TrueCrypt hidden partition. When you're forced to give up your password, your really important data has a chance of slipping by unnoticed. I'd also note that TrueCrypt is still being audited by the open source community to understand if it's truly secure. There is a possibility that a NSA-type group may have also installed a backdoor or two in it.

More on topic, this is just more reason to be extremely careful when interacting in any way with America when it comes to your valuable intellectual property or personal secrets.
 
Last edited:

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
48
91
In a way this makes me sad, but it is technically not illegal. When coming across the border, you aren't on US soil yet. Even when flying in. Until you pass that customs check point, you are in international territory and not bound by normal US laws. This is sort of why the US government has been using things like Guantanamo Bay for captives. Having captives in a location that is not US soil, they aren't bound by the laws that protect those captives the same way as they would be on US soil.

so if the airport isn't american soil, whose laws do you fall under if you smash your laptop over a TSA agents head? not american from what you're saying.

international law right?
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,429
3,213
146
In a way this makes me sad, but it is technically not illegal. When coming across the border, you aren't on US soil yet. Even when flying in. Until you pass that customs check point, you are in international territory and not bound by normal US laws. This is sort of why the US government has been using things like Guantanamo Bay for captives. Having captives in a location that is not US soil, they aren't bound by the laws that protect those captives the same way as they would be on US soil.

So the judge is correct that the 4th amendment doesn't protect laptop from being seized and search without a warrant when coming across a border. Anything and everything can be searched.

No the copy part..... that I am a bit more miffed about.

so if the airport isn't american soil, whose laws do you fall under if you smash your laptop over a TSA agents head? not american from what you're saying.

international law right?

That's nonsense. Guantanamo isn't US soil but airports sure as hell are.
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
In a way this makes me sad, but it is technically not illegal. When coming across the border, you aren't on US soil yet. Even when flying in. Until you pass that customs check point, you are in international territory and not bound by normal US laws. This is sort of why the US government has been using things like Guantanamo Bay for captives. Having captives in a location that is not US soil, they aren't bound by the laws that protect those captives the same way as they would be on US soil.

So the judge is correct that the 4th amendment doesn't protect laptop from being seized and search without a warrant when coming across a border. Anything and everything can be searched.

No the copy part..... that I am a bit more miffed about.



Yeah, that's horseshit. It's American soil.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
For those preaching TrueCrypt, I'd go in the direction of an additional TrueCrypt hidden partition. When you're forced to give up your password, your really important data has a chance of slipping by unnoticed. I'd also note that TrueCrypt is still being audited by the open source community to understand if it's truly secure. There is a possibility that a NSA-type group may have also installed a backdoor or two in it.

More on topic, this is just more reason to be extremely careful when interacting in any way with America when it comes to your valuable intellectual property or personal secrets.

between stuff like this, the NSA spying . . . american businesses that try to run a legitimate company are getting HOSED. Foreign companies do NOT want to deal with the US anymore. .. .
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
You two are just not getting it. CBP's purpose is preventing contraband, illegal immigrants, and terrorists from entering the country. The digital contents of a computer are only tangentially within that purview, and definitely not to the extent of needing to seize a person's computer and copying its contents. It's BS to argue that just because you're entering the country you give up all of your privacy.

Have to agree. Could the CBP take your personal handwritten diary and photocopy all its pages?
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,429
3,213
146
Actually I think Guantanamo is US soil, as it is leased and under US control.

It seems to have a pretty undefined legal status... Cuba doesn't acknowledge the lease as being lawful but the US just won't leave. The rules are essentially whatever the US says because no one has the muscle and the desire to change things.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
It has long been the case that anything coming into US is subject to search. They don't need a search warrant to search bags. A computer device is merely a device that contains data. What is the different between looking for physical contraband and digital contraband? Absolutely nothing.

When it comes to the border and entry into the US things are different and always have been in modern times.

^^This^^

And, IMO, such a decision doesn't really have anything to do with terrorism. It's just controlling what comes into your country.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
It seems to have a pretty undefined legal status... Cuba doesn't acknowledge the lease as being lawful but the US just won't leave. The rules are essentially whatever the US says because no one has the muscle and the desire to change things.

The SCOTUS, in a very convoluted decision that most of the judges don't understand or couldn't write (they left it to Kennedy), ruled that GITMO was US soil. (Although it could perhaps be that this decision is very narrow thus leaving other matters/questions regarding sovereignty unresolved.)

I think it's this case:

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.[1][2][3][4] Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control.[5] The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees, rejecting petitioners' arguments, but the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Fern
 

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,544
9
81
I don't know why the US doesn't want any tourists and the revenue associated with them.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It seems to have a pretty undefined legal status... Cuba doesn't acknowledge the lease as being lawful but the US just won't leave. The rules are essentially whatever the US says because no one has the muscle and the desire to change things.
Fern's post was what I was referencing. Seems patently dishonest to call it not US territory when Cuba cannot exercise the least bit of control.

I don't know why the US doesn't want any tourists and the revenue associated with them.
Because the Islamic ones sometimes blow up?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
It has long been the case that anything coming into US is subject to search. They don't need a search warrant to search bags. A computer device is merely a device that contains data. What is the different between looking for physical contraband and digital contraband? Absolutely nothing.

When it comes to the border and entry into the US things are different and always have been in modern times.

I agree that this seems reasonable to me. And encrypted drives should be seized if the owner doesn't provide a password.

Coming into the country isn't the same thing as being in your home or walking down the street, which are the places were search is unreasonable under the Constitution.

Why do you two hate freedom so much? It's always sad to see Americans that are such sniveling statist that they would freely bend over and let the government stick whatever they wanted in their asses.

And after you don't cough up the key/password, you are probably going to be sitting there a lot longer. That or the agent will take it, call a tech, and be provided backdoor access in a jiffy.

It seems like almost everyday we hear of a court decision like this, or of backdoors in software, radio receivers in USB cables, more Snowden leaks of NSA slides, .etc. It is really depressing and harshing my chi.

I am very worried about the long term psychological impact to our country if this continues. I am sure many people are internalizing a lot of strong feelings, and that can only go on for so long before bad things happen.

What do you think of the collective psychological impact of news like this that comes every day, and what it will mean in 10 to 20 years?

It's really sad to think that my son may grow up think that is just how it is, government over the individual.
 

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,544
9
81
Fern's post was what I was referencing. Seems patently dishonest to call it not US territory when Cuba cannot exercise the least bit of control.


Because the Islamic ones sometimes blow up?

Such incidents always get a lot of attention but in reality they are extremely rare. Making the life hard for all american citizens that travel and to actively discourage truism seems like a gigantic overreaction.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
31,036
2,688
126
This is NOT a police state despite what the Obama Administration or "homeland security" :rolleyes: thinks.


If the laptop drive is copied all they will get is basic installs. I dont even need to run the virtual machine, just run Firefox portable directly on the ramdrive. The cache is configured to run on the ramdrive as well.

Hibernation, thumbnails and virtual memory are all disabled.

I use this same setup for my home computer (16gb physical/8gb RAMdrive).

:whiste:
 
Last edited: