Homeland Security Changes Laptop Search Policy 273
IronicToo writes "The US Government has updated its policy on the search and seizure of laptops at border crossing. 'The long-criticized practice of searching travelers' electronic devices will continue, but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information.'"
5 Days? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, now they will just take away my laptop for 4 days. Good thing my flight is in two hours, and I am not back for 6 weeks...
-EL
Well that sounds reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
And since the Constitution only protects against *unreasonable* search and seizure, there is nothing wrong here.
It's just a goddamned piece of paper.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not at all reasonable. Frankly, there is no reason that the borders should be checking laptops. Why should they be allowed to withhold any media I have on me, be it paper or a laptop. If they want to make sure it's a laptop and not a fake bomb, thats one thing. But the contents of the laptop should be of no concern to them.
A press release, nothing more (Score:5, Insightful)
but a supervisor now would need to approve holding a device for more than five days. Any copies of information taken from travelers' machines would be destroyed within days if there were no legal reason to hold the information
.
"A supervisor." Not a judge or someone who has had formal training in law, but a coworker.
"if there were no legal reason to hold the information." They'll just claim they haven't had time to investigate it yet. Or "national security reasons", which is the same as not giving any reason at all. Legal reasons can be manufactured as needed -- our laws are sufficiently complex and vague that a reason can always be found to arrest, detain, and then jail someone. Laws exist to enable authorities to silence or remove people they don't like -- YOU can't enforce the law on someone else, after all.
Re:Copying files (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, because China has never engaged in industrial espionage at the border.
Re:Copying files (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:5 Days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Five Days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there are nuclear bomb plans on the desktop, why would we be holding these devices for any days? Why are searching people's data anyways, when any serious criminal could simply upload their data to a server, drop it in a Dropbox account, or just encrypt it before crossing the border?
We need to be encouraging tourism and business travelers, not pulling this crap.
What if I refuse to reveal a password? (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiots are only slightly smarter (Score:1, Insightful)
Not forever, not for 30 days, not for 5 days, not even for one hour. Even that hour is a strecth. Anything more requires a warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly is my paper going to be dangerous?
What could someone have coming into this country on a laptop that needs to be seized for any amount of time?
Destroyed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the border (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe he was referring to the Sir and bikini... But hey if that floats your boat go for it.
Re:5 Days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copying files (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course. I think this policy is simply revolting. I also think it has zero to do with industrial espionage.
It's got more to do with inconveniencing people and getting them to accept the fact that they are not the ones in charge of their personal effects. It's also got a lot to do with the need to "protect our phoney-baloney jobs" and look like they are getting tough on international child pr0n smugglers.
The end result, however, is a cleaned up version of the old joke:
Q: What did the security screener's kid get for Christmas?
A: My laptop!
Re:5 Days? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benjamin Franklin (Score:3, Insightful)
As for inspecting laptops on the border, if I need to smuggle some info in or out of the country I'd do it over the Internet. Faster, cheaper, more secure,
Re:Idiots are only slightly smarter (Score:5, Insightful)
They've already ruled that copying is stealing. Funny how that only applies to us...
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
The DHS has always held the belief (with the Supreme Court's backing) that people and their belongings at customs checkpoints at the airport (or at a border crossing) aren't within the country (yet), consequently, the constitution doesn't apply to "inspections" within those checkpoints.
This is insane (as is the idea that there are a whole bunch of things which are perfectly fine to do in, say, Guantanamo Bay, which wouldn't be OK to do in the US). The constitution does not grant rights - it merely enumerates a subset of a person's natural rights. There is nothing about these natural rights which is specific to America or Americans.
Re:Note to self: buy another laptop (Score:2, Insightful)
If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about? Think of the children.
Once it's out of your hands, I think the only safe course of action is to assume that they've made a bit-for-bit copy of the drive and installed a persistent, impossible-to-detect back door. Chances are slim that they're actually doing this, but the technology exists and since there is no way for you to know that this didn't happen I think you need to assume that it did. The costs of transmitting and storing the contents of your drive to the .gov agency of your choice is pretty low. Cost to analyze is somewhat higher, but still within the realm of possibility.
As many others have pointed out, if your data really is that sensitive leave it at home. I'd think twice about accessing it remotely too.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
You're frustratingly right about the courts and I don't understand the justification. The ideals were established for citizens because there were supposed to be the right way of running a government. So why are people allowed to circumvent these ideals just because someone is flying into the country? I don't know why so many of my fellow citizens have grown to fear people from other countries. If we believe or moral ground is the example for other countries to strive for then shouldn't we rigidly follow our own rules?
For me, I was once asked to leave my backpack at the counter of a liquor store in Vegas. I had my work laptop in it with a lot of sensitive information involved in setting up one of our events. When the keeper asked me to do this I promptly left as I won't do business with people that treat me like a criminal. Why should we treat incoming travelers like criminals? The vast majority are regular people who don't like being treated as though they have committed a crime anymore that I like to. It's very frustrating that people live their lives in fear when it's almost completely unfounded.
Re:Copying files (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with high fuel prices, a global economic slump that has international trade very tight for now, or perhaps the fact that people are finally figuring out that they can use GoToMeeting and VoIP conference bridges to get a whole lot of things done without having to move human bodies between continents to agree on a marketing program or manufacturing schedule. Nah, it's Eeeevil Laptop Searches. That's it.
Re:A press release, nothing more (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that mean there's a law to enable citizens to arrest, detain, jail, silence AND remove the government officials we don't like ?
Like uh, I dunno, the TSA ?
In the millions (billions?) of unwarranted searches performed under guise of national security, how many serious, dangerous, organized, threat-to-the-safety-of-the-nation terrorists have been caught and permanently neutralized ? In other words, what's the hit rate for this malware filter ?
If the answer is zero, you need to start thinking about a coup d'etat.
Re:Copying files (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, it's Eeeevil Laptop Searches. That's it.
Nor could it possibly be the security theater hassle as a whole;
I traveled through Europe right through the Irish troubles and never saw so much BS.
Re:The way we do it, from a US TLA viewpoint (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, stupid question, but if that's the case why is the person physically transporting a laptop in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to just have a laptop already setup and ready to dump data on at the far end? Depending on how it's handled, it could even have all the data on it and ready to go when the person gets off the plane.
Re:5 Days? (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding was that this was about when someone goes through Customs. That happens when you arrive in the country, not when you are getting on a flight.
It does, except when you come from Canada, where there's pre-flight customs clearance. And according to http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2008-I-001/documents%5Ctop_20_countries.xls [doc.gov] Canada is the top country of origin when flying into the US, so it affects a large number of people.
-Malloc
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
From where are these natural rights derived? Nature does not come with any rights.
According to the Declaration of Independence, they are in fact provided by nature: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
They are gained, and protected. The constitution was designed to specify and protect our rights, if nature provided them it would hardly be necessary.
Natural rights exist whether or not they are enshrined in law or protected by force. The US Constitution is not written to enumerate the rights of the people. The constitution was written to establish the form and scope of the US Government. Furthermore, nature has provided you with your fists and your wits with which to protect your rights. These may not be entirely sufficient at all times, thus further protection is warranted.
I used to be all for the Law Enforcement, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lost in this whole discussion with Homeland Security -- is how do we make sure the people watching us, aren't the problem?
It's been almost a decade now, that I've felt that there was NO OVERSIGHT on people with power, and of course, we only put on trial the few bad apples that are disposable. But if we cannot have anyone at the Fed accountable for destroying the economy, if we can't have anyone at the Pentagon accountable for absolute failure on 9/11 and then LOSING $2 Trillion dollars that seemed to miss the headlines on 9/12, what the heck is the point of sniffing up every business man's trousers --- if they are REAL bad guys, they might just be working for Homeland Security.
Did anyone investigate why Homeland Security was funding the CIA's "Prostitutes and Poker" scandal at the Watergate Hotel? Did someone just declare "bygones" and we all forgot about it?
There is no transparency and accountability in regards to abuse. For all we know, HS could copy the hard drive of someone from GM and give the data to someone at GE for a great price. The risk/reward for corporate espionage when NOBODY IS WATCHING THE WATCHERS -- well, corruption is inevitable.
I might have some trust in Homeland Security, if they spent less time looking for dirty pictures and downloaded music files and a LOT MORE TIME, looking into things like the Sibel Edmonds testimony: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374 [bradblog.com]
Re:Well that sounds reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the GP is correct. There are no such things as natural rights. Even sillier is the phrase "inalienable rights." If they were inalienable, we wouldn't have to worry about them being taken away, would we?
OK, this is a definition problem. Inalienable is not the same thing as inviolable. Inalienable means they cannot be given away or surrendered. They cannot be separated from the person. E.g., One cannot sell one's self into slavery. It does not imply that they are self-enforcing. One's rights, whether natural or social or whatever can be violated without ceasing to exist. When fact violates law we have crime.
The concept of natural or inalienable rights is not uniquely American or religious or spiritual.