EFF To Fight Border Agent Laptop Searches 324
snydeq writes "The EFF and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives have filed an amicus brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that the full court rehear and reverse a three-judge ruling (PDF) that empowers border agents routinely to search files on laptops and mobile devices. The case in question involves US citizen Michael Arnold, who, returning from the Philippines in July 2005, had his laptop confiscated at LAX by custom officials after they opened files in folders marked 'Kodak Pictures' and 'Kodak Memories' and found photos of two naked women. Later, when Arnold was detained, officials uncovered photo files on Arnold's laptop that they believed to be child pornography. In addition to raising Fourth Amendment issues, the amicus brief (PDF) reiterates the previous District Court ruling on Arnold's case regarding the difference between computers and gas tanks, suitcases, and other closed containers, 'because laptops routinely contain vast amounts of the most personal information about people's lives — not to mention privileged legal communications, reporters' notes from confidential sources, trade secrets, and other privileged information.'"
Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the search itself as being as much of a problem as his laptop being seized because of two (presumably legal, as the article says women, and the alleged children came later) porn images.
Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
ZOMG Naked people! (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, the ruling is un-Constitutional and clearly in violation of the 4th Amendment. Maybe it's time we start asserting our 2nd Amendment rights.
It was never a problem before. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand the argument (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, a file on the HDD can't contain a real bomb, only a virtual bomb. Virtual bombs don't blow up airplanes.
Re:Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Until then, you can't even discuss the issue without being suspected of being a perv.
Waiting for another Geek Squad incident... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that one! LOL! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
In a perfect world, search wouldn't be a problem. Privacy rights exist because police agents, custom agents, administrative officials are all fallible humans that are allowed to have weird opinions, small IQ, various beliefs and can usually be bribed.
Re:Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a fluke, from what I've understood of this case so far, that they uncovered child porn in the first place. The problem I have is that the "search" of the laptop initially produced something unrelated to a search for kiddie porn. Nudity != perverse pictures of children.
Even though this particular case shows a "positive" from the investigation, we need people to realize that in our system of justice and freedom the ends do not justify the means. We have protections and guaranteed rights (not granted ones) because we are protecting people from the system's possible abuses. We grant them power but never in exchange for our rights and freedoms. That is a common misconception of the "great unwashed" and it's up to us (and the EFF is helping) to educate people.
We need to focus away from the actual child porn found and focus on how they got to that... If we don't, the end result will become the justification, and like The Patriot Act, we'll be stuck with something that endangers us all.
Re:Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strong encryption for personal data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
If kiddo pix were found on one major political figure's desktop, that figure would be sent to jail and everyone would just shrug. Think of all the recent "family values" politicos who are simply erased with a shrug or lambasted for hypocrisy. Some of them may be innocent for all we know, but we're so jaded that hypocrisy is easier to explain than a frame-up.
Your plan would only work if the ones who framed a politician then came clean immediately afterward with PROOF of HOW they framed them, and more convincingly, framing two opposing figures at roughly the same time with different methods. At that point, when proving it was false to begin with, hit hard on the "if you've got nothing to hide" nonsense. Of course, if you plan to do such a campaign, you had better be able to remain firmly unfindable. Or you will be found hanging in your garden shed with a very convincing suicide note.
That Eeee pc looks better and better (Score:4, Insightful)
then , just add the cost of having the mini laptop seized to every trip.
Seems simple to me.
Re:It was never a problem before. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because I can't realistically take the contents of my desk, my filing cabinet, my credenza, my photo albums, and my "memento box" with me every time I decide to take a quick trip to Montreal.
I can, however, take my laptop.
Similarly, while I don't need to take all those physical things to do an on-site service call for an important Canadian customer, I absolutely do need to take my laptop.
Re:Good luck with that one! LOL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone know the last time this tactic was used? Oh yeah, Nazi Germany.
(first Godwin!)
Re:Boot to command line (Score:5, Insightful)
Which of the following two scenarios is more likely:
1. Government official says, "this guy is obviously a smart ass. I'd better just give him back his things and let him go."
2. Government offiical says, "this guy is a smart ass. I'd better confiscate his computer permanently."
I mean, I realize it's funny to say they won't know how to deal with a command prompt, but if you think that their ignorance will lead to them leaving you to pass unmolested, you're being hopelessly naive. You might as well suggest that if you simply put a lock on your briefcase and claim you don't have the keys they're going to wave you right through.
No. No they're not going to do that. You won't like what they're going to do.
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing. And that's perfectly ok - customs doesn't care about the security of flights, because they search your stuff after the flight is over. They're looking for things that are illegal to bring into the country (narcotics, weapons, large amounts of cash without proper paperwork, certain kinds of foodstuffs, etc).
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason why we have privacy laws. The border agents here have really overstepped their bounds.
Re:Do they really have a right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strong encryption for personal data (Score:3, Insightful)
Or just dual-boot. (Score:3, Insightful)
"That's right officer, there is only a 100 meg hard drive in this brand-new Thinkpad. Want to play Microsoft Hearts with me, or perhaps sign up for a free trial of Prodigy?"
Re:Strong encryption for personal data (Score:4, Insightful)
The traditional notions of privacy are no longer sufficient. We need a legal affirmation of privacy as a right here in America. It has thus far been assumed that one is entitled to privacy in your own home, as is reflected in the constitution, but our lives have extended WAY beyond that. In this age of instant global connections we need to attach privacy to the INDIVIDUAL - not merely that individual's home - and follow the notion through to every end of that individual's life.
Child pornography, though quite despicable, is NOT a border-control issue. I cannot imagine ANY kind of porn that would be such. In fact, I can't picture any kind of information that would fall under a border guard's purview at all. Think about it: If the same data could travel freely from state to state over the wire, what kind of restriction should one apply at the border?
No, there is no good reason for such a search, and it is only being allowed because our citizens have no right to privacy. If there were such a right, the need to respect it would greatly outweigh some bored TSA's curiosity.
Re:It was never a problem before. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should it be considered a routine matter for a border agent to be able to access all personal data, when it is not even a routine matter for the police to get this access? Yes yes, entering a country, import restrictions and all that. My point is that I agree with the EFF on this that it should not simply be considered equal to searching a briefcase or gas tank. This whole subject requires very careful consideration.
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
A right is a fundamental, inherent to the existence of a human being. You have the RIGHT to live, not to protect you from someone taking that right away form you, but because here you are.
Privacy PROTECTIONS exists because any and all people in a position of power have opportunity to abuse their authority for personal gain, thus violating your RIGHT to privacy.
You could as well say the Constitution grants you rights. This isn't true at all. There are no Constitutionally granted rights, only Constitutionally protected ones.
I know this sounds like quibbling over semantics, but I think there's an important fundamental distinction here.
Now I'll climb off my soapbox.
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying encryption is a bad practice (hell, my workstation's partititions are *all* encrypted). I'm simply saying that finding a way around the system isn't a suitable replacement for long term efforts to fight it.
Re:Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
What it will take to get this stopped is an innocent father or mother who is detained because they have a picture of their baby's first bath on the computer.
What's absurd these days is that parents are being investigated as child pornographers for baby bath pictures.
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you want, I can elaborate on why separating judgment and enforcement of a judgment are activities that must be carried by different organizations.
*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, if I had some illegal pictures or something, I'd probably just make a
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, the most idiotic part is the fact that anyone sufficiently sophisticated to harbor a lot of illegal information, or information deemed dangerous to national security, would most likely be smart enough to send it over the net to its intended destination via an encrypted link. Oh, wait... does that mean the government will start considering data streams entering our country as liable to unquestioned search? Think about it.
Re:Bad Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strong encryption for personal data (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to keep your genitals covered is one example of this. The right to keep your laptop's content safe from prying eyes is, at least to me, similar. In either case the state may have a need that outweighs this right, either to enforce the law or uphold the common good, but in most cases your privacy is respected. The part that worries me the most is the notion that the act of crossing the border somehow voids your protection from illegal search and seizure. They wouldn't be able to stop you on the street and go fishing for porn, so why at the border?
Again, I suspect that this behavior is only possible because there is no presumption of protection against it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Customs Agents != TSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Even for child porn, it can become a rather foggy issue. I, for one, have photos of naked kids on my HD. They are my own daughters, they are taking a bath or just waiting to get new diapers (and incredibly cute, but that's probably a father's pride talking:) and 2 years old.
*I* know they are my kids, and I also don't see anything wrong with those pictures. But what would a custom official who thinks pictures of grown up naked women are suspicious make of them?
Notice how they never say that it WAS child porn, but "that they believed [them] to be child pornography".
Re:Privacy and Cultural Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad Case (Score:1, Insightful)
This child porn BS is as bad as the terrorist BS who the hell cares - child porn isn't as big an issue as it is just made to feel like that - yes you are being manipulated.
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you give us key to take a look?
No? Too bad. Let us persecute you a bit.
Sorry, but encryption is NOT an option.
Being smartass wont help you either. Disk failure tale is not gonna hold water and missing substantial disk space is highly suspicious.
New busines model (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Buy lots of laptops, and some insurance.
2. Set up some servers offering secure online file storage.
3. Market your new short-term laptop hire company.
There's obviously a market for this. Getting on a plane has to be one of the worst experiences of modern life. In what way have the "terrorists" not already won?
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally, if I lived in or near the US, I'd switch the bios to boot off memory card first, have a memory card with a dummy operating system that makes the system looked borked, and then get really distressed that "my computer's broken". I can't imagine that they'd be smart enough to figure it out - again, wouldn't they pursue a different career if they knew enough about computers to understand what you've done (Lord knows that there's enough people already in the computer industry that couldn't figure that one out).
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment (Score:3, Insightful)
4th does not apply at customs - your papers and personal effects can be searched for anything that illegal to bring into the country, and can be seized for further investigation or if found to be or contain anything illegal
5th does not apply at customs - encrypting data should raise the suspicions of customs officials and cause them to ask for the password, in the same way that if you lock you baggage they will ask you to unlock it or force the lock
By travelling abroad you tacitly agree to abide by customs regulations which include the right of customs officials to search you and your property
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1st 4th, and 5th ammendment (Score:3, Insightful)
4th: At entry into the country your personal effects can not be seized unless there is legal cause.
5th: It has already been ruled by the supreme court that the 5th amendment applies to password to encrypted data.
Re:Bad Case (Score:3, Insightful)
People need to resist (Score:4, Insightful)
How can people not see what is really happening in the US? Most of these people in charge of homeland security and who are constantly pumping fear into the populace - they do not care about the people at all - most of them would WELCOME another attack as their power would increase (obviously I am not talking about the people at the lower or mid levels of such organizations, I am sure most of them have their hearts in the right places)...basically the people are being manipulated to feel like they only way they will be "safe" is if the country turns into a gigantic jail.
Even if you think this sort of crap has any value you have to know (if you have any technical expertise at all) that any terrorst or criminal would use encryption or some other method to conceal their sensitive data.....So really the only people this affects is the general populace.
America is becoming a textbook fascist state, I don't say that as an exaggeration or for shock value - it is a fact - we meet all 14 points of fascism that Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist identified after studying the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). I am sure that these 14 points have been posted here before so I won't repeat it - if you are interested you can google "14 points of fascism" or go to a site like:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm [secularhumanism.org]
Almost a year ago I had a chance conversation with a couple who lived in Germany during the thirties through the forties - the are terrified and cannot believe what is happening here - they came to America in the 50s convinced that what happened in Germany could never happen here, and both of them say they see the exact same incremental processes happening here.
I wish I had recorded what they told me, but it was a spur of the moment sort of thing. I came across the paragraphs below on a website today and it reminded me very much of what they had to say (although coming from them it was so much more powerful and straightfoward):
"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. .
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . .
You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . .
Re:Except.... (Score:3, Insightful)
QUOTE the part of the Constitution where it says the Fourth Amendment ends at the border, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Re:Bad Case (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's exactly why they accused him of having child porn instead of something else!
Re:Except.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nack. The Bill of Rights gives us freedom from search and seizure without due process of law. If agents of the government have no reason to suspect I have committed a crime -- and by definition, crossing the border in compliance with the laws of the countries involved cannot possibly be interpreted as "committing a crime" -- then by a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, they have no probable cause to search my laptop at the border. All of this bunk about how the Constitution doesn't apply at the border is just that -- bunk.
Re:Bad Case (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's complete and utter bullshit, and always has been!
The Fourth Amendment:
See how it says "people?" That does literally mean people. Not "citizens." Not "people in some particular place." Just people. Everywhere. Period. Full stop!
If I'm an American citizen in America, I have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If I'm an American in Afghanistan, I have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If I'm a fucking Afghan in Afghanistan, I still have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures! Now, granted, I might have trouble enforcing that right, but it still fucking exists!
Why is this so fucking hard for the dumbasses on the Supreme Court to fucking understand?!
Re:Seizure the real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The confiscation of legally owned assets, based upon the assumption of guilt rather that the legally defined right of innocence is also a criminal abuse of power. Your data is yours and privacy should be enshrined unless there is sufficient existing evidence to legally justify a search warrant, otherwise it is a further diminishing of a citizens rights, rights that your forebears fought and died to gain and protect, forebears who lived with the daily abuses of personal privacy, and established those laws to protect the rights of future generations so that they would not have to suffer to the same intimate abusive indignities and personal humiliations.
How proud can you be as a parent when it is your child that has their personal property taken, when their privacy is invaded or, when they are stripped searched and molested. As a grandparent is it really ok to allow your fears to motivate the stripping away of your grand children's rights. Rights and personal privileges that you enjoyed and that your own grandparents fought to provide for you.