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.'"
Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:0, Insightful)
A line has just been crossed... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think more than a few corporations will object to this, though, if only because sensitive data really shouldn't find its way into the hands of these people... who knows what might leak?
Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:4, Insightful)
But IANAL.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey nice laptop you got there. We need to hrm... search it... will have to take it down to forensics... we'll send it to you when we're done..."
"Where's my laptop?"
"Still searching..."
"Can I get it back"
"No! National security... 9/11... terrorists... child pornography... gay marriage... cats and dogs living together... enough key words yet?"
before 1984... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or...
A prior honest President genuinely though the security measures were necessary. Then a corrupt Big Brother saw that the mechanisms created could be exploited and was attracted to power. He then said all the right things and got himself elected. The tools to control were already in place.
Well, today in the US, and especially the UK, those mechanisms are already firmly in place. Even if your current government is not evil, there's nothing stopping the next one so being. With the new powers one can wield what evil person wouldn't want to gain control? One eventually will come to power. It is inevitable.
It's probably already too late.
Looking inside your suitcase w/out a warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, this is one of the more overt practices of a police state. It's even more worrisome when people forget that the very philosophical and documented building blocks of the nation is a piece of paper that restricts the federal government from doing exactly what this article reports:
This cannot be suspended except under marshal law and I've missed that memo if it's been announced. When the government stops recognizing their limitations and begins using forms of law enforcement and fear-mongering to bypass those limitation, then it's most definitely a police state.
The simile doesn't fit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same as this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Industrial espionage, including by the US, is a very real concern.
Just how secure is their storage? (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, you can refuse to give the passphrase (Score:3, Insightful)
Pssst... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How Long Before... (Score:4, Insightful)
And then the RIAA and MPAA will demand that "illegal content" be stopped.
Every special interest group that can tie their interests to computer data will want in after that.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost every time an injustice is reported, there's someone to point out how much worse it is some place else, as if that makes everything ok.
If I posted counter examples of countries where people have more freedoms and used that to back up a claim of injustice here, you would probably counter with something like "so move there then..."
BULLSHIT
The proper response to this crap is to complain loudly, in court if possible, in the streets if not. When someone does so, you cheer them on, support them. Sarcastic comments like yours are "un-american".
Re:pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Which also brings up the following line of questioning by border guards: "Why are you traveling with a blank laptop? You wouldn't keep a blank laptop around unless you had something to hide."
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who would go to the trouble of transporting data on physical media, when it can be transmitted over the internet?
Re:Pssst... (Score:4, Insightful)
With restrictions such as due process, that is. Unless you're going to come out and say "oh well, the government can jail or kill whoever it wants with impunity". The funny thing is that citizens have similarly restricted rights, for instance, they can kill in self defense.
Same as looking in a suitcase?? (Score:5, Insightful)
And now its "same as looking in a suitcase"??
obviously "who" does it makes a difference.. The government has your best interests at heart, honestly!!
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really tired of hearing this argument. I'm an american, I love my country but I see things wrong with it and I know it could be improved.
Yes, it's better here than it is in Iran. You know what? That's not good enough. I'd like to think that our country is being held to a higher standard than "better than Iran and Afghanistan."
Re:Corrupt (Score:1, Insightful)
In today's age of huge government and absolute power, it is wise to anticipate this. Plan accordingly, because although it isn't statistically likely, you could very well be the next one to be falsely targeted.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in terms of the number of people in jail, which is probably a good way to gauge oppression, you are #1.
Welcome to the 37-year "War on Drugs", which so far has cost more than any other war except WW2. Pretty stupid waging a war against your own citizens - sort of like pushing on a string.
Something is rotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
Under what jurisdiction are these detention centers? I assume that, since you can be held without trial, access to an attorney, etc. without even having been accused of a crime (because if you are accused then they can just let you in and arrest you on the spot), the detention center must be somewhere outside of US jurisdiction in order for them to be able to strip you of rights that the Constitution and various laws and court cases forbid them to strip from you...
Something doesn't smell right about all of that.
The way I see it, there should be 2 choices: 1.) you are accused of committing a crime, they let you in, you are arrested, and then you get your day in court, or 2.) you are not accused of a crime so they let you and in and you are free to go. There really shouldn't be any middle ground there, if you are US citizen returning to the country.
Re:before 1984... (Score:5, Insightful)
The mechanisms to control society are firmly in place. If you are evil, this has to be attractive. There WILL be evil people trying to get into power. Now, or soon.
Now these evil people are not going to base their campaign on "hello, I'm evil, vote for me". They will SEEM to be perfect candidates. Just as Hitler did, just as Mussolini did, just as many other examples did.
The difference is, right now, the infrastructure is already in place. Once in power you can be evil all you want and there's nothing to stop you, short of revolution -- which bearing in mind the obesity, alcohol dependency, and apathy of most US and UK citizens, won't be successful.
Again, there WILL be evil people trying to get into power. The temptation is too great, government has far too much power. Those people will not seem evil. One of them will eventually succeed in gaining that power.
Or foolishly, like the Germans in the 1930's you can assume everything will be fine and the ballot box is the voice of truth. The government is not the problem really, of course politicians are greedy and corrupt -- all of them. Always are, always have been, always will be. It is those who are accepting and trusting of them that are the real danger to society.
Re:Cell Phone Search (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't look now, but that may just be the entire point. One of the tell-tale marks of authoritarianism is locks on both sides of the border door: not just coming in, but also going out. Clearly, harassing innocent civilians is an effective way to discourage them from crossing the border.
Consider the trend over the past 100 years. Those locks are only going to get stronger, until ultimately, only the power elite will hold the right to come and go.
Ideally, the authoritarian government keeps the subject class ignorant of what's outside the borders. Why? Because hat way, it's a hell of a lot easier to control what the subject class knows and believes.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to turn "unreasonable" into "reasonable" by way of many small "reasonable" steps over time.
Re:Does the 5th ammendment apply? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you are joking, but I'll bite....
Are you suggesting that the Constitution only provides safeguards and rights for US citizens in America, and not everybody else who might be there? Can I still expect the police to provide the same level as protection to me and my property as they do for others?
If the answer is 'No', then why should anyone other than a US citizen consider complying with your laws - surely they only apply to Americans and not to the rest of us?
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, don't accuse the government — it just follows the people's wishes...
Though I will agree that we've certainly done this to ourselves.
Please explain why that's flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that flamebait? This isn't just searching for contraband, this is looking back through web history files, email and sensitive "thought data" without bothering with either probable cause or a warrant. Any reasonable person has a right to resent this type of intrusion, not to mention confiscating expensive equipment without due process.
More frightening than the act itself is the attitude of creeping intrusiveness justified by people who went through the American educational system. I don't think anyone in the history of the world imagined themselves being part of an emerging police state. In almost every instance it was a gradual process where the principles were acting on some type of perceived imperative. The people involved believed they were justified. The GRU, the Stasi, the SS and a thousand organizations like them started with a social imperative.
Don't think we'll ever be that bad? If there are no checks and balances, no oversight and no way to challenge over-reaching policy what's stopping us from getting there? There has to be a line even for terrorism. This far and no farther. Instead we keep kicking that can farther down the road.
It's not the actual policy. It's not this little thing or that little thing, it's the attitude that the ends justify the means underlying each little step.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Person 1: "Why are we eating at McDonald's again? This food is lukewarm and the service sucks!"
Person 2: "Well, why don't you try eating out of a garbage can? McDonald's is MUCH better than eating out of garbage can! See? We're at the best place to eat in the world!"
Person 1: "Well, at Quiznos, they have these toasted subs that are yummy! They cost a little more than McDonald's, but the location down the street has great service, too."
Person 2: Indignantly: "Oh, well, if you like Quiznos so much, why don't you just go eat there, then!"
See what I mean, folks? See how ridiculous this sounds? I bet you couldn't stop from laughing. This is the same argument, people. No, it's not different.
Please, please, people: Start thinking for yourselves and stop parroting what people on television, in the media, and in the political arena -- whoall have ulterior motives for saying what they say -- are saying!
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How many border agents does it take ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... to image copy one hard drive in a year?
Sheesh! These guys must be totally incompetent idiots if they can't make a copy of a hard drive within a day, and return the laptop. If they think the owner might use that data to commit a future crime, then keep the hard drive and return the rest of the laptop. If they think the owner might commit a crime even without the data, then arrest the owner. Just keeping laptops makes no sense.
How is inbound data a threat!? (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand wanting to control the export of data, but how could bringing data into the country possible be a security (or otherwise) risk? It's not like fruit or animals, which do pose an ecological risk. What exactly are they looking for? Did the RIAA/MPAA put them up to this?
The government could scan a bazillion laptops and still miss the terrorist communications occurring on the internet, in secret code, encrypted, and embedded in other files, or on CDs sent through the mail. And even then, I'm at a loss for what data could possibly pose a threat to the country.
The supposed terrorists aren't just going to send Osama bin Laden to Ellis Island with his Outlook Contacts Folder unencrypted.
This is about as helpful to the country as electronic voting and bill of rights toiler paper.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you really believe that we're in the midst of a gradual erosion of rights that defies historical precident in American society.
If you apply a little historical perspective, you'll find that these issues move back and forth over time, and that to a large extent a seletive focus on the negative combined with recent increases in the flow of information have created an illusion of a slow, steady march toward oppression. In truth I'd say the long-term trends have been positive.
Not to say that we shouldn't question each and every increase in authority that government tries to claim for itself -- we should. But this "boil a frog" meme is nothing but tired, lame, non-productive alarmism -- on top of the fact that once you realize the underlying premise of the analogy is false, it starts sounding stupid.
Should the border officials be allowed to copy data? Actually, maybe so. Crosing national borders isn't like moving about the streets freely; the search and seizure rules have always been different at the border than during, say, a routine traffic stop (and probably should remain so, though certainly that's a different debate altogether).
If you believe that customs should be able to search for contraband and/or undeclared items upon which import taxes would be levied, then it is inconsistent to hold that they can't examine the data you're carrying. Of course, we expect them to follow certain rules -- just like we expect them not to confiscate your legally-owned-and-carried valuables.
Does "examine" require them to "copy"? Maybe -- depends what they're looking for. That's where legitimate questions can start to arise. It should be clearly defined what their authority is, and it should be clearly defined what they are (and are not) allowed to do with any data they retain, how long and for what reasons they can retain it, etc.
But that all has a lot more to do with controlling corruption amongst border officials than it has to do with unworkable cajun cooking techniques.
Re:Seriously.. (Score:3, Insightful)
- You carry a laptop from your company
- For the data/software on the laptop, you've signed an NDA
- Your laptop is searched at the border and data is copied and archived from it; this to me seems basically the same as your house being searched without a warrant
Are you responsible for the breach of the disclosure agreement?
Anyway: I guess it's time to carry almost empty laptops and access your company data over VPN/SSH/SFTP etc.
The beauty of disk encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it guys, we have to study how the french did it in WWII and update it for the 21st century. The Nazi party didn't die, it took hold in the U.S.A. and has been slowly asserting itself.
We have to present evidence anonymously because even though we may have freedom of speech, we have to watch out for trade secrets, copyright infringement, and the lawyers. Blow the whistle and lose your home and livelihood, no jail time, nope, just homelessness and poverty. So, they can destroy you without even making you a martyr.
That is not the point (Score:4, Insightful)
This "game" should not even be played in the United States of America. The fact that you feel the need to hide that which need not be hidden is a true metric of just how far the U.S. has gone down the wrong road.
If the U.S. government was a spouse, the entire world would be telling us to get a divorce on the grounds of an abusive relationship.
Re:Because, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pssst... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boiling a frog? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like they can prevent someone like me, a 125lb. programmer with glasses from boarding a plane with a bottle of water but Osama, oh yea where's Osama?
Re:Cell Phone Search (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Real frog-boiling (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! A real Commie-agitator on Slashdot... Somewhere an empty noose is swinging on a lamp-post waiting for you...
Yes, there is a strong push towards it. Those "wishes" don't make it right, however.
No, you are confusing things. "To each according to his need" is a Communist, rather than Socialist ideal. Nothing wrong with it in itself, except that all known attempts to achieve it in practice involved mass-murder on unprecedented scale. Which is why you belong on that lamp-post I mentioned at the beginning.
There is nothing wrong, except "free" is impossible. Somebody (the rich minority) is paying for it. But the majority is voting for it so, of course, the boiling will only get worse — it is self-perpetuating. The only thing stopping the majority from voting themselves more and more of the minority's money, are some scruples and the minority's protests. Those barriers continue to erode as the temperature in the pot is rising.
Yes, I was. And the only reason, I lived my childhood in a "free" kindergarten, was that our Commie-government would not let us escape to this "brutal" Capitalist world. It was not until 1990-ies, that we were able to emigrate.
When I speak against Socialism, I know, what I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, are posting out of your ass.
Re:What about that old buzzard in Paris (Score:2, Insightful)