U.S. Confiscating Data at the Border 630
PizzaFace writes "U.S. Customs agents have long had broad authority to examine the things a person tries to bring into the country, to prevent the importation of contraband. The agents can conduct their searches without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. In recent years, Customs agents have begun using their authority to insist on copying data brought to the border on laptop computers, cell phones and other devices. The government claims that this intelligence-gathering by Customs is the same as looking in a suitcase. In response the EFF is filing a lawsuit attempting to force the government to reveal its policies on border searches. 'The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts. The lawsuit was inspired by some two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics.'"
Re:Old news? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:5, Informative)
Story in the Washington Post (Score:4, Informative)
"Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself."
Then explain why you were checking all the Iranian sites. "Oh, the cable, of course. Please step over here sir."
Cell Phone Search (Score:5, Informative)
I live in San Diego, about 10 miles from the Mexico boarder. A lot of San Diegans, including myself, go down there all the time for clubs and cheap shopping. On the way back to the US, I've got about a 5% chance of being stopped and taken to Secondary Inspection-- I've been in Secondary 5 times in the past 5 years. The first agent who you speak to when going through the normal process can flag you to be in Secondary if he thinks something is suspicious or out of order.
Usually Secondary just involves a more detailed search of my car and 30 minutes of sitting in a waiting room with a bunch of Mexicans. One time in Secondary was quite different. In this case, the first guy asked me where I went in Mexico on this trip. I couldn't pronounce the name (Via Bueneventeura in Chapultapec, Tijuana), and I guess he thought I was making it up or telling him a story. He put a note on my windshield and directed me towards Secondary.
For some reason this particular Customs agent in Secondary didn't believe that I am who I said I am. He kept asking me why I would go to a foreign country without my passport (at the time, you only needed to bring a driver's license and that is all I ever brought with me). After asking me questions for over an hour (literally, what hospital was I born in? where did I go to elementary school? etc...) and looking me up in various databases, the guy starts going through my stuff.
The customs agent wanted to search my smartphone (Sony Ericsson P910i at the time), but he didn't know how to use it. I asked him what he thought he could possibly find in there that could be contraband. At any rate, he didn't know how to search my phone, and I wasn't going to help him. There was a big toothmark in my phone from where my dog chewed on it, and I told him that because of the damage to the touch screen, I couldn't actually go through the files on the phone anymore. He wasn't too happy with that answer, but he accepted it anyway.
Another hour later I started complaining to one of the supervisors on the floor-- I had been sitting in this smelly waiting room for 2+ hours with no access to a bathroom, and there was no apparent reason to keep holding me. By now the agent must have confirmed in at least 12 different databases that I am a US citizen, born and raised. I'm also just about the whitest nerdy white guy with a Boston accent that you could ever hope to meet; not exactly the archetype of a foreign agent or drug smuggler. The supervisor finally gave me leave to go.
Of course my car had been turned upside down-- glove compartment and everything else turned out. Rather than complain again, I just wanted to get out of there.
Since then I always bring a passport, and I definitely don't go across the boarder as often as I used to since that experience.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Informative)
1) Explaining takes a lot of time and in this case the explanation has been stated many many times and should be fairly common knowledge to the average Slashdot user.
2) Sending people to look up a piece of data on their own forces them to find the answers for themselves rather than having them spoon fed as is quite common in the current US society. (And other places from what I hear.)
Oh and the boiling frog reference?
When cooking a frog live you put it in a cold pot of water and heat it slowly and the frog doesn't notice the temperature change until it's too late. If you were to just put it in the hot water it would jump out and thus be harder to cook.
The US gooberment is boiling frogs as we speak...
Re:Confiscating or Copying? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, given that in TFA, one "Udy" had her employer's (Radius) laptop stolen by customs, I think we can say "confiscated".
it happened to me (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about? (Score:5, Informative)
"A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."
When i am crossing the USA border with encryption that is not crackable with ease - like keys over 1kb long - the enforcers (beleive to) have enough reason to put me in jail, either to annoy, prosecute or study me. And besides that: rumor has it that even when one uses or develops heavy encryption outside North-America soil, they might want to jail that person when it visits the states later on.
A few solutions, take your pick (Score:2, Informative)
Virii, trojans, and worms. Oh my! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:it happened to me (Score:3, Informative)
Use TrueCrypt. Problem Solved. (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, TrueCrypt 5.0 is out, and it even runs on OSX now.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Informative)
Last year while I was crossing at Sault Ste Marie the Canadian border patrol (whatever the agency is called) flipped through my journal, and then asked me to log into my laptop. They had me stand well out of visual range while they went through it. It was totally unexpected by me, and it left me feeling violated and angry.
I checked my logs for USB activity during that time and there was none, fortunately. Actually a history of their session showed Gnome help had been accessed before they apparently gave up.
Since, I've configured my desktop to prompt for both username and password. I have two logins: will and william (not their real names). will is my actual account, while william is essentially empty. From the "asked me to show a recent document" in TFA, I guess now I should have a little sample data to make it somewhat convincing.
Re:yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:2, Informative)
Curious... (Score:3, Informative)
Customs inspections began during the administration of GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1789 to be exact. It was the FIFTH act of Congress. You might think they all had a pretty accurate inkling of the intentions of the framers at that juncture.
Re:Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant (Score:2, Informative)
If you have sensitive data that needs protecting, store it on a server, not your laptop. Then access it over SSL. It's not rocket science, it's barely even computer science!
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:5, Informative)
I realize it's slashdot so you didn't read the article, however, it does quote a woman who's laptop was taken with the assurance it would be returned in 10-15 DAYS. That was a year ago and she's still waiting & being stonewalled. I don't know about you, but if I was on a business trip & had my laptop taken for 10-15 days - my trip is pretty much shot.
Further reading of the article shows someone detained for 1.5 hours while the entire contents of their phone was reviewed --- and then missed call logs deleted for the time in question. Add to this the refusal of the department to provide any information via FOIA requests and you have a very fishy situation.
The obvious questions are:
- Who reviews it and for what?
- Under what circumstances is it passed to whom?
- What safeguards are in place to ensure the security of the data?
- What happens to that data?
- How long is it retained?
- What recourse is available if the data is released to the wild?
None of those questions have ever been answered by Customs, and that's a frightening prospect. The only comment that they had was that their agents are 'trained to handle confidential data'. Of course, according to the last GAO report, they lost over 400 of their own laptops the previous year.I know several people who carry data on laptops that, due to legal restrictions, cannot be shared without a court order. So, where does that leave them? Even Federal employees cannot demand that you break the law.
As for the briefcase argument, I do not believe that they sit there with a photocopier & copy the entire contents of a phone book, but they have copied SIMM cards.
As for your argument about money & following the peoples wishes, well, perhaps if the government hadn't lost $1B in cash in Iraq, we could afford to actually fund the school projects that are already mandated. Also, I doubt that 'the people' are wishing that the government continues to increase the restrictions on copyright. That is definitely a big business wish. Pay attention to where the money comes from and goes, big business has more influence right now than the people in terms of what is actually being passed into law.
War on Drugs (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong: Richard Nixon, 1969. Its been that long ...
Look at the figures and weep. The US, on a per capita basis, beats everyone else.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
The neighbours to the north and south manage to be MUCH lower ... feeling oppressed yet?
Re:Seriously.. (Score:2, Informative)
and you right, 37 years is much too short of a history.
Harry Aslinger started this scam in the late 1920s.
It was supposed to keep our white women safe from the "darkies" (his word not mine)
He was apointed to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1931.
by my math that is 77 years of lies, propaganda, and a war on our own people.
google that one and pass the tic-tacs.
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:2, Informative)
In 1864, the United States was an agrarian natiton with little industrialization. Urban industrialized nations require more governance than a land sparsely populated with farmers who work mostly by manual labor.
By the standards of the contemporary industrialized world, the U.S. is lightly taxed [forbes.com], and citizens of other nations laugh at our tax whining.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:4, Informative)
OK, per capita [nationmaster.com] then:
#1 is United States with 715 per 100,000 people.
Then follows Russia, Belarus, Dominica, Iran, etc. until finally we come to the first Central European country, albeit until recently under soviet rule,
#35 Poland: 210 per 100,000 people
Then we have Uzbekistan, Israel, Bahrain, and others, until we come to the first Western European country. That is, a country which, similar to the US, has no war at its border and lives in prosperity. Just that they were a fascist state until 1975:
#61 Spain: 144 per 100,000 people
Then follows China, Bahrain, etc. USA's comparable neighbor incarcerates a sixth of the USA's number:
#75 Canada: 116 per 100,000 people
Now we enter a bracket that includes many Western European countries, and Saudi Arabia, until:
#93 Germany: 96 per 100,000 people
#108 Sweden: 75 per 100,000 people
#119 Norway: 64 per 100,000 people
And so on. Don't make me unfriend you again
Re:Seriously.. (Score:3, Informative)
You should look up "police state" in a dictionary [reference.com] sometime.
Re:What about? (Score:4, Informative)
"A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent."
When i am crossing the USA border with encryption that is not crackable with ease - like keys over 1kb long - the enforcers (beleive to) have enough reason to put me in jail, either to annoy, prosecute or study me. And besides that: rumor has it that even when one uses or develops heavy encryption outside North-America soil, they might want to jail that person when it visits the states later on.
Not all admissible evidence is "evidence of criminal intent".
In fact I would argue the availability of encryption software and the NON-USAGE of it, is evidence of innocence (or at least proof that the accused is no hardened criminal and deserves some leniency)!
They never said that the encryption is necessarily evidence of wrong doing. Only that it is admissible as evidence. It would be for the jury to decide whether or not it proves anything; guilt innocence or otherwise.
""We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the existence of an encryption program on his computer was at least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him,""
He was convicted for the actual testimony from the girl. There was no evidence he has even encrypted anything at all. The defense was attempting to have the conviction thrown out on the basis that somehow this evidence was irrelevant and tainted the verdict. The evidence was slightly relevant (barely), and it was not prejudicial anyway, so the trial was fair.
Even if the appeals court found the evidence completely irrelevant it wouldn't have reversed the ruling, since in light of the fact that nothing had actually been encrypted it is absurd to think that the jury somehow had a reasonable doubt about the girls testimony but the existence of unused PGP software erased that doubt.
No way did a judge say "evidence of encryption software = evidence of criminal intent".
the only way to exclude evidence is to prove it is absolutely irrelevant or that it is so misleading that it would threaten the validity of the verdict. (or that it was obtained by government misconduct).
at the end of the day most good prosecutors who have a good case aren't going to harp on little minutia of barely material information. They are going to confuse the jury into thinking that somehow this detritus is supposed to prove something, and if you get some jury members fixated on the idea that encryption software that hasn't been used is supposed to prove something they might just acquit because they lost the crowns line of reasoning.
for whatever insight it gives into the mental state of the user of a computer it is tangentally relevant and would be admissible unless it was misleading or too confusing. evidence of general behavior around an object relevent to the crime (the computer) is somewhat relevant.
the existence of microsoft word would have been deemed admissible. it also proves no crime per se. But some newspaper might say "microsoft word is evidence of criminal intent!"