US Courts Consider Legality of Laptop Inspection 595
ceide2000 writes "The government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computer's hard drive, the government says, is no different from looking through a suitcase. One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit." This story follows up on a story about laptop confiscation at the borders from a few months ago.
A better analogy... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the answer is: no, that's not allowed. They are allowed to search in order to satisfy themselves that it is a book/document and not something nefarious (bomb, contraband, etc.)... but beyond that they cannot go rummaging through any data you happen to be carrying on your person.
By analogy, I would expect that physically inspecting a laptop (to make sure it's not hiding anything nefarious) is okay, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to start scanning through the data on it.
It's tricky (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a few things that make it different. First, by opening a suitcase and performing a cursory inspection, an official doesn't read every notebook and letter the traveler is carrying. A customs official that takes a computer for inspection can do all kinds of unreasonable things to it, and there's little that can be done about it. There's also the problem of figuring out what is illegal: Should a traveler prove that every mp3 he is carrying was ripped legally? Should we have to carry the licenses of all commercial software? It'd be crazy.
And finally, there's the fact that anyone smuggling software will just get an internet connection and send it across through the wire.
What are they looking for? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A better analogy... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I wanted to get information beyond the border without It being noticed, a partitioned MP3 player HD hiding an encrypted volume.
The MP3 player plays just fine, but only a physical search by a trained IT person would even notice that something was wrong. especially if I "upgraded" an old 20gb model with a 40 or 80 gb hard drive, and partitioned it in such a way as to leave 20gb for the player, and the rest was hidden from view, unless inserted into another computer.
I just thought of that reading these responses.
Just create a dummy account? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you assume somewhat more sophisticated inspectors, you may want to put what can be construed as nefarious software (nmap, tcpdump, nessus, kismet, etc) in a more secure than normal place.
Now, if you expect the thing to be confiscated, that is a different story.
No, it's worse than that (Score:5, Interesting)
Company Computers and NDA's?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What are they looking for? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But (Score:4, Interesting)
It's foolish not to find out about the laws and customs before you travel to foreign countries. Of course if you are a tourist I think the agent can just refuse you entry anyway - which might be better if you really do have something to hide. Though a refused entry record is going to make international travel a pain for the rest of your life.
If you're a citizen, then the ka-ching sounds will be making it hard to concentrate as you try to get everything on record for the sue everyone vaguely involved action that's coming...
Of course there's always the chance you get shipped off to the middle east for some torture since you look like you might have once been in the same building as someone who went to school with someone who is a suspected terrorist. It's not something I'd try, but then again I wouldn't be trying to cross the border with child pornography on my laptop...
Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe they can legally do that, but why are we saying that's ok? Maybe someone can elaborate on the potential physical danger posed by those words on that paper?
Folks, something being legal doesn't make it right. When posed with a question like this you need to focus first on the morality and ethics of the situation. You need to focus on our common goals and how they make society better. You need to focus on the golden rule. Only then do you look at the law. But when you look at the law, you don't say, "hark, it is legal so I can do it anyway!" No no. You say, "Hark, it is legal but morally repugnant so I will work to change the law.
That's the way this is supposed to work.
well said (Score:4, Interesting)
They remind me a bit of the similar folks who fuss about the dangers of vaccines or chlorine in the water supply, because they've lived in a world with powerful antibiotics so long they no longer really believe that deadly bacteria exist and can kill you dead without some basic precautions at the similar "border" between one's body and the outside world.
SmartCard (Score:3, Interesting)
* For the cryptographers and pedants in the crowd, feel free to substitute the word "infeasible."
Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Customs agency is operating under the mandate that they can detain you and/or inspect you arbitrarily, and that you have no legal recourse against it.
You used to be able to say "I withdraw my petition to enter your country" and they'd just basically ship you back. Now, they don't really care. Gonzales basically gave them a legal opinion that says you, as a foreign national, have no legal protections or expectation of privacy. I'm not sure of the specifics, but at one point, they said "we can do anything we like".
Refusing to give them the information on the grounds of a NDA will mean nothing to them. They'll jail you if they want to. They are not bound by your NDA, and they can compel you to answer whatever they ask or open what they request.
I wouldn't be willing to try to stand behind an NDA with my company at a US border -- but then again, I don't plan on presenting myself to one any more. Over the last few years, I have decided that there really isn't a compelling enough reason to travel to the US. The level of draconian crap and complete loss of rights which can ensue is just not worth the exposure or the risk.
It gets echoed a lot here on Slashdot, but an awful lot of people simply will not travel to the US again.
Cheers
Re:one workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
1. remove your SD card from your digital camera and stick it in a computer,
2. notice that you have a 2GB index file,
3. recognize (somehow) that it is a truecrypt volume,
4. get you to enter the password that opens the hidden volume instead of the default innocuous volume.
Re:But (Score:4, Interesting)
This has less to do with protecting the public than it does with further conditioning the public to EXPECT to surrender for ANY reason, even without suspicion or due process or valid warrants.
Why, just WHY should the public trust some low-level functionary or scanner operator to NOT heft away with product ideas?
Re:If you can search a suitcase... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's going to interesting the first time one of these cases reaches the USSC. What happens if I encrypt my data with AES 256 (certified for TOP SECRET data), I get stopped at the border, and I refuse to give up my encryption key? Since I'm a citizen, they can't deny me entry, they can't hold me until I give up my key, and they can't decrypt the data. An interesting situation. As a former police officer, I know how I'd handle the situation without breaking the law and without holding the subject in jail, but I doubt that most DHS folks would have that much creative imagination.
Not just US (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never taken my laptop round Europe with me so I can't really give any experience of other customs. I've not actually had British customs itself check my laptop at all though, simply putting it through the scanner in it's case was enough for them although I'd imagine they may check it if I was coming into the country as a foreign national or if I seemed slightly more dodgy!
Re:No (Score:2, Interesting)
Now should they get a warrant from a judge, then matters become a little more shaky. They could argue that the laptop is locked and that you are in contempt by refusing to unlock it for search as ordered by the court the same as they would do for someone refusing to unlock a building or safe, etc. That is where a good encryption software comes in. Unless they can prove that the drive is encrypted, that you know it is encrypted and you are in possession of said keys to decrypt it. They get nowhere.
Citizens can push this issue since they can't exactly refuse them entry. Visitors legally can do the same, but being refused entry can have ramifications as others have mentioned previously. IMO they are using that last item as a method to coerce disclosure of laptop contents even though they have no legal grounds to demand the same. Normal caveat - IANAL.
Re:next will be... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Fourth in itself doesn't really say anything about privacy. It doesn't even keep the government from prying into our private affairs. It does two things: it prevents the government from "unreasonable" (that is to say more or less irrational) seizures and searches. It doesn't even require a warrant for any search or seizure, but it sets standards for warrants where they are customary. If you are a strict constructionist, it doesn't do anything more.
It is centuries of judicial interpretation and faulty pedagogy that have invested the fourth amendment with privacy protecting powers. Conservative jurists have fought this every step of the way. It was innovators like Louis Brandeis who saw a "right to be left alone" implied by the fourth and fifth amendments, and liberals like William Douglas (Griswold v. Connecticut) and Harry Blackmun (Roe v. Wade) who found a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment. It certainly isn't there in plain words, but what is there (they would argue) doesn't make sense unless is protecting such a right.
Strict construction is an argument against this kind of reasoning. However if you believe in this philosophy, you'd better be pretty accurate about what the Constitution does say, because it lacks a great deal of the mechanics you'd need to protect individual liberties, although the spirit is there.
Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Suitcase opening... HAH! (Score:3, Interesting)
I have this odd feeling that there isnt one. The CBP [cbp.gov] certainly do not list the procedures, nor is it easily found using their search or site maps. For all I know it may be there, but i sure am not running across the list of regulations concerning search and seizure of foreign visitors.
If it is sanctioned by law, well if you dont like it do not visit. Many area already thinking this way in the nebulous "rest of the world", although i almost want to thank the US for creating a HUGE influx of conferences being hosted in canada that used to be hosted in the US. Tim hortons alone is grinning ear to ear on that one.
Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? (Score:2, Interesting)
My reasoning:
If customs starts searching corporate laptops, they naturally will be able to view data that the corporation will most likely want to keep secret. Additionally, in some cases, the corporate agent will have to reveal the password and encryption key for the laptop and data, which would let the customs agent know what kind and what pattern of security the corporation uses. Finally, the delays caused by the searching of the data on the laptop could cause problems for the corporate agent.
In the end, the corporation will get ticked of and try and get their lobbyists to make it so that searches of that nature cannot be done to corporations. After all, its the corporations that usually provide the campaign funds for the various government offices, so what the corporations want, the corporations get.
Re:No you have a choice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but false. Look into Maritime law, that hasn't applied for hundreds of years. You can be stopped and held at gunpoint while your ship is searched. Same thing for entering the country. They also aren't liable for any damage caused, so they can disassemble your boat/car and say "hey, I guess there weren't any drugs, here's your parts back"
Re:next will be... (Score:5, Interesting)
The British Crown would not have stripped colonials of citizenship, for the simple reason they didn't have citizenship. Nor did any resident of Britain from the lowliest Cockney tinker to the haughtiest peer of the realm, for the simple reason the Crown didn't have citizens, it had subjects. Of course the Crown was never an absolute monarchy, it was never anything like the crown of France, or Spain. The barons had this thing called the Magna Carta.
There were always a few Whigged out eccentrics who thought ordinary people had, not just a few basic rights, but something called liberty. Many people toyed with such views in their phase of youthful indiscretion, but it was the overseas provincials who really bought into the whole delusion. So much so that when they gained their independence, they set up their entire government the exact way they thought the government in London was operating all along. There were a few republican small r twists. The King was called the President and he was elected every four years. The House of Lords was called the Senate (wealthy provincialism is no barrier to having a fine library of Latin works) and the commons was called the House of Representatives. But pretty much they took the customary powers of each piece of the English government (as they understood them) and put them down in a document that ensured that government would be weak and far away, just like in the good old days before the King started taking an interest in Colonial affairs.
They didn't bother to write everything down, like exactly when warrants are needed, because everybody already knew how that was supposed to work. Which is why the Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights to begin with. Once it was proposed, it wasn't really a controversial idea; some people had a bee in their bonnet about what seemed perfectly clear to most people, so they did what Americans always do when faced with a complex philosophical problem like the relationship of the people to the government. They put together a quick patch that seemed to cover most of the things people were most concerned about, got it passed, and got on with the business of innovation, territorial expansion, and generally making money.
Consequently, a lot of what they put down is open to interpretation. Interpretation being what it is, this is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing. As much as I agree that the people have human rights, and the Bill of Rights reflects this, people can and do make serious arguments that it doesn't apply to people who are aliens. Whether it did or not would probably have been clear to every patriotic American in the first decades of independence.
Which doesn't mean they'd actually agree on anything, other than the meaning was plain one way or another.
Re:well said (Score:3, Interesting)
It's so wrong-headed that I can't think of any intelligible purpose that it serves, other than to keep people subservient by letting them see that they could be inconvenienced far more than they are. (I.e., psychological warfare of the government against it's citizenry.)
Re:Company Computers and NDA's?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Terminal A? (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course, most of those other bombings have been from bomb vests, right? Someone with two or three big-assed suitcases, running at a full clip, is a perfectly normal sight in an airport. Not so much in other places, where it might arouse suspicion. No need to bother with a limited vest-based solution in an airport. If you've got a couple of timers or a remotely-detonated solution and were willing to sacrifice yourself, you could drop three or four bomb-filled suitcases along the side of the security line, over a span of 50-100 feet, and detonate them before anyone realized something was wrong. Two bombers working together could probably manage to wound or kill everyone in even very long security lines.
Bonus: the attack would cripple the airlines and, by extension, commerce in general, at least as badly as 9/11 did.
The fact that such a simple, easy to execute attack hasn't happened tells me that one or more of the following is true:
1) "The Terrorists" don't want to cause huge amounts of economic and human damage with a minimal of cost and sacrifice. Yeah, I'm thinking that this isn't likely.
2) "The Terrorists" are not even 1/10 as well-organized and widespread as we've been led to believe they are, and thus lack the resources to carry out this sort of attack, and/or are focusing their very limited resources on more spectacular attacks and cannot spare even the relatively tiny cost (in men and in money) to do things like this.
We're wide open for dozens of attacks of this sort, and they just don't happen. Makes me wonder how necessary any of the airport security is in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Going down the drain.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No you have a choice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Juts another little egotistical power trip for pencil dick thugs, don't like your attitude, your appearance, your accent or your colour, and the dick heads steal your laptop and cost you a couple of thousand dollars.
So how long before the arse holes wake up about modern phones and their gigabyte storage capacity, and start stealing those to fullfill their petty power trips.
Re:Terminal A? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know of a respectable French old lady in her 60's who is banned from traveling to the US.
Her crime ? At the customs inspection, as the officer checked her purse, she inconspicuously
hushered "boom" (it was in 2002).
She was sent back to France on the next flight after 24h in custody.
Re:SmartCard (Score:3, Interesting)
Does travel insurance cover this confiscation?