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

[werepossum]

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.

Oh, agreed. But making life hard for all American citizens that travel (and all visitors) is much easier. And apparently, much more fun.

And it's difficult to not chuckle at the irony when my wrinkly old fat blue-eyed carcass is repeatedly singled out "randomly" for "extra attention" by a young Arabian male TSA worker. At least the weenie watching machines have eliminated that particular groping.

 

[shira]

^^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

If not justified by fighting terrorism, how is the digital content of a computer remotely within the realm of what CPB wants to "keep out" of the country?

Pirated OS? Pirated movie? Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!

 

[werepossum]

If not justified by fighting terrorism, how is the digital content of a computer remotely within the realm of what CPB wants to "keep out" of the country?

Pirated OS? Pirated movie? Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!

Truth be told, pirated movies are probably a bigger concern than terrorist plans. One's rich buddies are more concerned with protecting THEIR IP than with preventing terrorism which could happen to anyone - but statistically not at all likely to be them. Remember that customs was created to enforce taxes.

 

[Tom]

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.

Its conceivable you'd have to surrender the book.

 

[Tom]

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.

It has nothing to do with Bin Laden or recent terrorism.

Nations have a right to control who and what crosses their borders. There's nothing unique about computers that excludes them from this.

Before your in, your out. When your out, how would the Constitution apply anyway ?

 

[shira]

Truth be told, pirated movies are probably a bigger concern than terrorist plans. One's rich buddies are more concerned with protecting THEIR IP than with preventing terrorism which could happen to anyone - but statistically not at all likely to be them. Remember that customs was created to enforce taxes.

But how would CBP possibly be able to determine that a movie you have stored on your computer is pirated anyway? And think of the potential maximum payoff: A few dollars in taxes.

Compare this with physical contraband, where a person might be attempting to smuggle across the border something extremely valuable or highly illegal (for example, artifacts from a country that bans their exportation).

In other words, it just doesn't make sense to "digitally search" a person's computer, as any taxes collected would be minimal at best. And the fact that CBP so rarely does digital searches anyway (the court said what, 10 in one million?) tells us that they don't really think they're going to find valuable contraband that way.

No, it's pretty clear to me that "digital contraband" is NOT CBP's objective. It's just a gross power play, intended to intimidate journalists and other "unpopular" types whose words might undermine public support for the extremes the U.S. government has gone to in the name of the war on terrorism.

I'm going to be very interested in seeing how the votes fall when the ACLU lawsuit makes it to the SCOTUS. I'm guessing yet another 5-4 decision, with the conservatives falling lockstep behind the government and the liberals on the side of the ACLU. Another Kennedy tie-breaker, I fear.

 

[etrigan420]

Before your in, your out. When your out, how would the Constitution apply anyway ?

But when they search me, I'm in...so the Constitution *should* apply.

Let's call it what it is: An American citizen being searched on American soil without probable cause.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm going to be very interested in seeing how the votes fall when the ACLU lawsuit makes it to the SCOTUS. I'm guessing yet another 5-4 decision, with the conservatives falling lockstep behind the government and the liberals on the side of the ACLU. Another Kennedy tie-breaker, I fear.

Stories like this make me want to back the ACLU.

 

[WelshBloke]

Truth be told, pirated movies are probably a bigger concern than terrorist plans. One's rich buddies are more concerned with protecting THEIR IP than with preventing terrorism which could happen to anyone - but statistically not at all likely to be them. Remember that customs was created to enforce taxes.

Who the hell physically smuggles pirated movies across boarders by plane for distribution?

It's not like you don't have the internet in the US to download stuff there.

 

[irishScott]

TrueCrypt full disk encryption, don't leave the country without it.

Better a standard partition with a hidden partition. Then you can cough up everything and get through a lot faster, yet your secure data is secure.

Seems this is slowly becoming the new standard of online anonymity. Security through obfuscation. Can't decrypt, crack, or look for what you can't see.

 

[Tom]

But when they search me, I'm in...so the Constitution *should* apply.

Let's call it what it is: An American citizen being searched on American soil without probable cause.

No, you're not in until you've gone through customs. I'm pretty sure that legally you're not in country until you've gone through customs.

 

[HumblePie]

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

Technically no. If you are landing at an international airport from an international plane flight, you technically are not on US soil until you pass that customs gate. All international airports have that setup. Hell Edward Snowden was in that "limbo" ground of not technically being in Russia when he was waiting at the airport for weeks waiting for asylum to be granted. That's how it works.

This only applies to flights coming into the country from another country. If you are flying from Chicago to LA you will always be on US soil when you land. If you are coming from France to the US, you won't land on US soil. You aren't on US soil until you cross the customs border check.

 

[hal2kilo]

My company no longer allows company laptops go out of the country and the Blackberry has to be double encrypted.

 

[rommelrommel]

Technically no. If you are landing at an international airport from an international plane flight, you technically are not on US soil until you pass that customs gate. All international airports have that setup. Hell Edward Snowden was in that "limbo" ground of not technically being in Russia when he was waiting at the airport for weeks waiting for asylum to be granted. That's how it works.

This only applies to flights coming into the country from another country. If you are flying from Chicago to LA you will always be on US soil when you land. If you are coming from France to the US, you won't land on US soil. You aren't on US soil until you cross the customs border check.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Being in the transit area simply means that you have not been legally admitted to the country. Snowden chose not to clear customs/immigration because he wanted to know what was going to happen to him before he did so (and because of his lack of documents he was unlikely to be able to go anywhere else.)

When you land you are physically in that country and subject to its laws, regardless of whether you've been legally admitted or not.

 

[destey]

That, or they were sitting in the capitol the entire time.

Al Qaeda couldn't dream to do the amount of damage we have inflicted upon ourselves.

Almost. Statist use anything at their disposal to accumulate more power.

After watching Closed Circuit (and thinking about operation Fast and Furious), I'm starting to think maybe the govt knew about 9/11. Everyone defending this NSA spying was saying "tin foilers" before Snowden, now they say "you would have to be naive to think this wasn't happening."

At this point, given Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc, I wouldn't put ANYTHING past the USA govt.

 

[HumblePie]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Being in the transit area simply means that you have not been legally admitted to the country. Snowden chose not to clear customs/immigration because he wanted to know what was going to happen to him before he did so (and because of his lack of documents he was unlikely to be able to go anywhere else.)

When you land you are physically in that country and subject to its laws, regardless of whether you've been legally admitted or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_zone

Really?

Because last time I checked they were still considered international areas every time I've traveled in and out of the country. That's why there is duty free shopping areas and other places that are NOT part of the normal laws and soil of the country you are "in" but not really in.

In general, the laws of the Constitution apply to US citizens even in these international zones. But coming from another country is what is considered reasonable requirement to allow for search and seizure of any and all goods looking to come into the country.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

OK, but to fair that's because you're a bootlicking scumbag.

 

[rommelrommel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_zone

Really?

Because last time I checked they were still considered international areas every time I've traveled in and out of the country. That's why there is duty free shopping areas and other places that are NOT part of the normal laws and soil of the country you are "in" but not really in.

In general, the laws of the Constitution apply to US citizens even in these international zones. But coming from another country is what is considered reasonable requirement to allow for search and seizure of any and all goods looking to come into the country.

Ok, so if I fly to America, and happen to bash someone's head in while in the transit area what happens to me? I get to hop a plane home right? Duty free stores are duty free because OF the laws of the host country, not by virtue of being unregulated. Transit areas in international airports are still sovereign territory of the host country and they are not extraterritorial. If they are exempt from any requirements of the laws of the host country it is by virtue of the laws of the host country, not by virtue of some inherent status granted to transit areas under international law.

 

[HumblePie]

Ok, so if I fly to America, and happen to bash someone's head in while in the transit area what happens to me? I get to hop a plane home right? Duty free stores are duty free because OF the laws of the host country, not by virtue of being unregulated. Transit areas in international airports are still sovereign territory of the host country and they are not extraterritorial. If they are exempt from any requirements of the laws of the host country it is by virtue of the laws of the host country, not by virtue of some inherent status granted to transit areas under international law.

Uhh an international zone isn't a fucking lawless zone you idiot. Stop using a strawman attack when the wiki clearly defines it for you if you read it.

It's an international area that has laws set an agreed upon by those nations that have interest in that area. Which means there are laws that apply, BUT aren't necessarily the same laws of either country to which the international zone is formed for.

Just like embassies and consulates are not usually considered the sovereign soil of the host nation they are located upon. This is how Julian Assange lives right now in such a place. That was how Edward Snowden was living when in the international zone at the Russian International Airport. THAT was why he couldn't be extradited from Russia initially. America has such a treaty in place for those not granted specific asylum. If Edward Snowden had stepped onto Russian Sovereign soil before being grants asylum, he could have been arrested and sent back to the US. But the international area had no such extradition terms attached to it. So he hung out in there until his asylum process had been approved.

 

[Fern]

If not justified by fighting terrorism, how is the digital content of a computer remotely within the realm of what CPB wants to "keep out" of the country?

Pirated OS? Pirated movie? Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!

Truth be told, pirated movies are probably a bigger concern than terrorist plans. One's rich buddies are more concerned with protecting THEIR IP than with preventing terrorism which could happen to anyone - but statistically not at all likely to be them. Remember that customs was created to enforce taxes.

There's also corporate espionage (another form of IP) and child porn etc. I think there are many, many things that could be smuggled across borders with a HDD.

Edit: Forgot to add with the knowledge that the NSA is tracking/capturing anything and everything that goes across fiber or airwave transporting by HDD is the obvious work around and would therefore be an obvious focal point.

Fern

 

[unokitty]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has published a Guide for Travelers Carrying Digital Devices.

If you travel internationally with your computer, probably worth a look.

Uno

 

[marvdmartian]

Ought to be interesting, the first time they try this with a Chrome Book. "Oh, you want to copy my hard drive? Please, feel free....if you can find one!"

 

[tommo123]

wonder how the TSA would deal with a truecrypt container that needs a passphrase and a keyfile to decrypt the contents if the file is at home

 

[werepossum]

There's also corporate espionage (another form of IP) and child porn etc. I think there are many, many things that could be smuggled across borders with a HDD.

Edit: Forgot to add with the knowledge that the NSA is tracking/capturing anything and everything that goes across fiber or airwave transporting by HDD is the obvious work around and would therefore be an obvious focal point.

Fern

Good points.

Ought to be interesting, the first time they try this with a Chrome Book. "Oh, you want to copy my hard drive? Please, feel free....if you can find one!"

I suspect the NSA already has access to your Chrome book data. It's looking for data not on the web, as Fern pointed out.

 

[rommelrommel]

Uhh an international zone isn't a fucking lawless zone you idiot. Stop using a strawman attack when the wiki clearly defines it for you if you read it.

Clearly you didn't read it too well, because the citations about transit areas in airports are all garbage and there's all of what, one sentence about transit areas?

"International airports have international zones for individuals who have not cleared customs and immigration of the hosting country."

It's an international area that has laws set an agreed upon by those nations that have interest in that area. Which means there are laws that apply, BUT aren't necessarily the same laws of either country to which the international zone is formed for.

Other nations have an interest in the transit area of LAX? All of the laws of the USA apply, outside mandatory reporting to customs and immigration upon entry, and that's because you might simply be transiting instead of seeking entry. Duty Free is just there because the goods are intended for export, and thus exempt from US duties. Try and take them into the US without your exemption provided by US law and find out how duty free they are...

Just like embassies and consulates are not usually considered the sovereign soil of the host nation they are located upon. This is how Julian Assange lives right now in such a place.

Pretty big difference between an embassy and the transit area of an airport.

That was how Edward Snowden was living when in the international zone at the Russian International Airport. THAT was why he couldn't be extradited from Russia initially. America has such a treaty in place for those not granted specific asylum. If Edward Snowden had stepped onto Russian Sovereign soil before being grants asylum, he could have been arrested and sent back to the US. But the international area had no such extradition terms attached to it. So he hung out in there until his asylum process had been approved.

Negative. He didn't apply for entry to Russia, and since he was in a transit area they could not compel him to seek entry. That is ALL that a transit area exempts you from, because he could have theoretically been intending on flying on to another country. Had they considered Snowden to be in violation of any Russian laws they could have grabbed him in a second, and there was a very real risk that the FSB was going to make something up and do just that.