ACLU Sues TSA Over Electronic Device Searches (techcrunch.com) 115
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration over its alleged practices of searching the electronic devices of passengers traveling on domestic flights. "The federal government's policies on searching the phones, laptops, and tablets of domestic air passengers remain shrouded in secrecy," ACLU Foundation of Northern California attorney Vasudha Talla said in a blog post. "TSA is searching the electronic devices of domestic passengers, but without offering any reason for the search," Talla added. "We don't know why the government is singling out some passengers, and we don't know what exactly TSA is searching on the devices. Our phones and laptops contain very personal information, and the federal government should not be digging through our digital data without a warrant." TechCrunch reports: The lawsuit, which is directed toward the TSA field offices in San Francisco and its headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, specifically asks the TSA to hand over records related to its policies, procedures and/or protocols pertaining to the search of electronic devices. This lawsuit comes after a number of reports came in pertaining to the searches of electronic devices of passengers traveling domestically. The ACLU also wants to know what equipment the TSA uses to search, examine and extract any data from passengers' devices, as well as what kind of training TSA officers receive around screening and searching the devices. The ACLU says it first filed FOIA requests back in December, but TSA "subsequently improperly withheld the requested records," the ACLU wrote in a blog post today.
Electronic devices (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop taking private and business related sensitive "electronic devices" to areas where a search can be expected and a search is legal.
US courts have been asked every generation to offer protections, the right to a lawyer, to courts, to not have a bag searched, to not be questioned, to not have electronic devices questioned.
Every generation expects "airports" to
Re: (Score:3)
Aldous,
Lay off the Soma for a while, and come back when you're able to write coherent sentences.
Thank you,
The Anti World State
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, searching is the lie, installing software when you are not looking is the reality. Soon as that phone leaves you sight sell it, if you want your privacy back and make no mistake. They want to take you phone, simply refuse and catch the next flight, you digital life, you are the only person who has rights to it, don't say no and not only are you selling yourself out but in the most gutless fashion imaginable selling out all future generations, why, cowardice. When they ask what do you need to kee
Re: (Score:3)
...searching is the lie, installing software when you are not looking is the reality.
Do you have anything to back that up? Sounds paranoid.
They want to take you phone, simply refuse and catch the next flight...
Right. Because they're going to change the rules between the flight you booked and the next one. Let me know how that works out. I've got shit to do and I'm not going to explain to my customer that I'm a day late because I didn't want TSA to see my selfies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but my understanding is that courts have found that searches at borders or airports are reasonable.
Re:Electronic devices (Score:5, Informative)
The TSA has no such ruling, they have no such scope of operations. Their job is to screen for weapons, nothing more. They are not a law enforcement agency. They have no basis or cause to be searching electronic devices for anything. But they are getting away with it because people can't usually afford to miss a flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Homeland Security defines "the border" as anywhere within 100 miles of any border or shoreline. . .
https://www.aclu.org/know-your... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two-thirds of Americans live within 100 miles of a border. [aclu.org]
Including the entire states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Hawaii, and virtually all of Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and most of inhabited California.
And Washington DC in its entirety, but that's not a state.
This may not include a sliver of Vermont, though I doubt TSA will let the fly fishers off so easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prove that. The ACLU is arguing about this now, and that is the point of the FOIA requests, because as I pointed out two-thirds of Americans, by residence, can be part of the buffer zone, and the TSA is searching devices belonging to passengers on entirely domestic travel, and yet does not explain why.
Prove your claim. TSA may well be conducting these searches claiming they are permitted in Title 8, but until they show why we should not assume anything. TSA may well assert they are justified as if they are
Re: (Score:1)
Is that law enforecement "roll" purchased at Dunkin Donuts?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a TSA ever ask to even turn something on, much less try to log on and search the device...?
Re: (Score:2)
I average about one domestic flight a week, but never out of SFO (where the ACLU complaint originates from), and have never had TSA "search" an electronic device, usually carrying a smartphone, an e-reader/tablet, and a full-size laptop
Once or twice TSA has asked to do the "swab" explosives test on a laptop, but that's the extent of their interest in my electronics. I'm not saying the ACLU is overreacting to the TSA announcement of "enhanced scrutiny" for small electronics at the X-Ray belt, but you'd thi
Re: (Score:2)
"When you search something you have to have a reason for the search."
And this is precisely what the ACLU is asking. What is TSA looking for?
And of course, this is what TSA does not want to disclose. So here we go.
Re:Electronic devices (Score:5, Insightful)
ANAL, but my understanding is that courts have found that searches at borders or airports are reasonable.
This is not about people traveling on international flights. This is about US citizens traveling on domestic flights within the continental US and never leaving US airspace.
Neither the TSA nor Customs/Border authorities have the authority to perform any search of domestic travelers, demand ID/papers, or demand that you answer their questions.
It is quite likely that these searches are ordered quite deliberately only as verbal orders so as not to leave a paper trail for when FOIA requests start rolling in like now. Likely, they just get a phone call from some department, agency, or agent/officer/official requesting they search some person of interest, follow through, and report back by phone without creating any documents revealing the practice of performing unconstitutional searches without a warrant. Stonewalling or otherwise stymieing legitimate FOIA requests and other legitimate requests for documents, even subpoenas from Congress, seems to be quite in vogue for the US government.
That's what happens when governments get too big and powerful; they start breaking their own laws with impunity while using those same laws as a weapon against opposition and those who would hold them accountable for their crimes.
The TSA very likely has not provided any responsive documents in response to the ACLU's FOIA request because the policies in question are not of the written variety so they cannot provide that which they deliberately chose not to create.
None of which should surprise anyone. The federal government has trampled on every one of the 10 rights in the BoR, I'd contend even the 3rd Amendment which forbids the quartering of soldiers. The reason the Third was created was the King would send soldiers to "quarter" in the homes of colonists they suspected of rebellion so the soldiers could search everything and watch everything they did.
I contend the US government is quartering *digital soldiers* in our devices in the form of the tools and vulnerabilities created or kept quiet in order to perform the same task as the King's soldiers did in spying on the colonists.
Our freedoms are disappearing quickly. Better wake up and make some noise, as it may already be too late to stop it.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Title 8, baby.
8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(1)-(a)(3) among other statutes. Yes, they exceed their authority, but that's what this fight will be about.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no US Code, law, Act, etc that can authorize violating the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. and an unconstitutional law is no law at all.
Define "unreasonable" (Score:3)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is pretty god-damned mother-fucking clear-as-crystal. So pardon the shit out of my mother-fucking french for expecting the god-damned government to get a mother-fucking warrant first.
Here's the problem with your little rant. They know the weakness in your argument and in that particular amendment is in defining the word "unreasonable". If they convince a court that the search is a reasonable one then that whole pesky amendment problem goes away. They don't have to get a warrant if they can convince the courts that what they are doing is reasonable. The entire amendment hinges on what we define the word "unreasonable" to mean and that is the bit under attack.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shall not be violated". "Shall not be infringed". Interesting how the one is regarded as holy writ, while the other is regarded as...well, not really meaning anything.
Note that I didn't specify which was which. Because, in any given group of people, there'll be some who go the one way and some the ot
Re: (Score:2)
"As long as they are regular electronic devices, the data on them is neither a weapon or a terrorist"
https://its.uiowa.edu/support/... [uiowa.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
"Day by day I'd post helpful and interesting comments across a range of topics, and never would I receive a reply."
You're doing it wrong.
Expecting replies is sort of pointless here. Really, no one will reply unless they hate you.
And many will miss your comments, since they will be cruising at +1 or above, to avoid the detritus of AC comments, not caring if they miss a few gems.
Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to travel with my laptop but if I had anything to hide it sure as hell wouldn't be there. Anyone caught at the border with something illegal is an idiot an is destined to be caught.
Why the hell woudn't they encrypt it, stash it on a server, and downloaded when they get home? Alternatively send it to a home server before you even get on the plane? Then, of course, deep-delete everything.
Re: (Score:2)
The device can be looked at, turned on, questions asked. An empty computer that works is what a business should be supporting until it is safe to use a computer again.
Re: Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get off the Internet until you learn to be civil.
Re:Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone caught at the border
This is about standard domestic searches NOT the border exception.
Re: (Score:1)
Domestic searches can be no less aware of security issues given the past US domestic security issues.
Why would any nation leave the "domestic" side of their security wide open?
Why would anyone allow domestic travel to be less secure?
Re: Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:2, Informative)
"Why would anyone allow domestic travel to be less secure?"
First and foremost, FREEDOM you asshole. Secondly, this sad state of security that you support is not sustainable. It costs way too much, offering little protection, and impedes freedom. No one, including the government can protect you all of the time. Wake up to reality.
Re:Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:5, Informative)
They have no business searching any electronic devices. Their mission is simple, screen passengers and their checked luggage for weapons capable of bringing down or hijacking an aircraft. Nothing more.
This is not a border crossing. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to Travel freely within and out of this country as one of the non-enumerated fundamental rights of this country. These searches are a massive invasion of our 4th amendment rights and a massive mission creep of an agency that has a very simple job (that they are rather inept at doing).
They are not Customs which is tasked to control illegal content (pirated IP, Kidde porn etc) from entering the country. They are not a Law enforcement agency (FBI) tasked with trying to stop the existence and movement of illegal content. They are the TSA, tasked with making sure no weapons or bombs get into our airport Secure zones.
Please explain what content security screeners need to be looking for. What file (that a TSA goon is likely to find) is going to threaten a flight?
Re:Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:4, Interesting)
Shit, well scratch that, I was wrong. You are likely to be arrested, but quite a few lawyers claim they can get you off:
https://www.ciyoudixonlaw.com/firearms-law/what-happens-if-i-accidentally-take-a-gun-through-an-airport-security-checkpoint/
https://nolacriminallaw.com/the-problem-of-firearms-at-tsa-checkpoints/
https://criminal-defense-attorney-tampa.blogspot.hr/2012/03/accidentally-bringing-gun-to-airport.html
The short of it is you should always clearly state that you did not know there was a firearm in your bag. That will get you off the criminal charge, but the slimy TSA fucks will still hit you with a $10k civil fine. There are a number of ways to get that down, but you may still end up paying something....sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
AC searches are searches. Domestic searches can be no less aware of security issues given the past US domestic security issues. Why would any nation leave the "domestic" side of their security wide open? Why would anyone allow domestic travel to be less secure?
No, searches are not searches
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) searches aren't about securing the plane or airport, they are about the Federal government controlling what enters the country. Traditionally, Customs is limited to searches when crossing the border, though they've managed to redefine "border" to anywhere within 100 miles of any national border.
Not looking at what kind of pirated software a citizen has on her laptop when taking a domestic flight from San Francisco to Dallas does not make the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The street is not security at an airport AC.
Similarly, in and of itself, using an airplane as a means of travel is not 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime.
Perhaps we should amend the Constitution regarding issues such as the 2nd, 4th, 5th and other amendments. Perhaps we shouldn't. Either way, there are defined ways to do just that, or not, depending on the will of the people. Until the Constitution is actually changed, the law is the law as it exists here and now.
Re: (Score:1)
Many generations of people have attempted over decades to define a US airport as not been able to search their bag without court paperwork in their name for their bag.
US courts side with the "airports" and the ability to search and question.
Searching is legal and all rights exist before, after and during the search at an airport.
Re: Why do people demand that they be caught? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh shit, my bank account has a password on it. I must be committing wire fraud and I should turn myself in.
The presence of a lock does not indicate guilt. We put locks on things because there are bad people in the world. Under the DMCA *you* can be jailed for breaking a DRM lock. If the government is just going around pipe-wrenching people to break open all locks then THEY ARE THE BAD PEOPLE.
This is an end-run around the constitution. If anywhere less than 100 miles from a border is a constitution-free zone
Re: (Score:3)
[Emphasis mine.] Ok, now imagine you don't have anything to hide. What happens then? Do you think that magically prevents the search?
The government got caught red-handed doing the searches, and they arn't even denying they were doing it. They did the searches before, and independent of, whether or not they found anything i
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that magically prevents the search?
I don't get how you could conclude that I would think something like that.
The point is that a search -- legal or illegal, consensual or not -- won't find anything if I don't keep anything on there that the law considers contraband or evidence of illegality.
My other point is there is absolutely no reason to have anything like that on your portable device except stupidity.
TSA has ONE job (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA has ONE job. Keep people from bringing dangerous items on planes. The data on electronic devices doesn't qualify as such. This actually makes flying less safe because it distracts TSA from keeping truly dangerous items off of planes.
Re: (Score:3)
That they travelled to a nation to support and funded a banned group.
Photographs, faith based and political support for groups of interest to the USA. Funds for and meetings with people and groups of interest to the USA.
GPS, images that show the device owner when questioned was in a nation they failed to mention when asked about.
Re:TSA has ONE job (Score:4, Interesting)
Data on electronic devices can show a persons support of and funding for a banned group. That they travelled to a nation to support and funded a banned group. Photographs, faith based and political support for groups of interest to the USA. Funds for and meetings with people and groups of interest to the USA. GPS, images that show the device owner when questioned was in a nation they failed to mention when asked about.
While these are within the scope of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) search [cbp.gov], all of the above are outside the allowed activities of the TSA [tsa.gov].
The article states " This lawsuit comes after a number of reports came in pertaining to the searches of electronic devices of passengers traveling domestically.... TSA does, however, have public policies pertaining to the search and seizure of electronic devices at the border and during international trips."
The complaint [aclunc.org] seems to conflate TSA and CBP searches, and alleges TSA is searching the contents of electronic devices held by domestic travelers flying through SFO, but provides no evidence to support this claim.
Re:TSA has ONE job (Score:5, Informative)
The complaint [aclunc.org] seems to conflate TSA and CBP searches, and alleges TSA is searching the contents of electronic devices held by domestic travelers flying through SFO, but provides no evidence to support this claim.
A complaint is not the document where evidence is provided. The complainant may well be holding their cards close so that the TSA hasn't the chance to alter, conceal, or destroy additional corroborating evidence they might be currently unaware they possess.
Not providing evidence in a court complaint filing is normal and not indicative of anything.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most radical ISIS believer, if they have no weapons or explosives cannot be refused entry to the secure zone of an airport by TSA. That isn't their job. Their job is to make sure he
Re: (Score:2)
Which all sounds like a really terrible way of detecting people who might want to harm the US.
A lot of those people are radicalized in "safe" countries. People like ISIS realized that it is much easier to just radicalize people over the internet than to try to cross borders. Cheaper and more effective too. Weapons are everywhere, just hire a truck or buy some kitchen knives.
On the other hand, you probably want people like journalists and aid workers to be able to visit those countries, and ideally want to a
Re: (Score:2)
Some day I should download this data that you're talking about, and smuggle it onto the plane. Then I'll hit a pilot over the head with it, and the plane will be mine!!
Re: (Score:2)
Data on electronic devices can show a persons support of and funding for a banned group.
Yes, that's called a search of your papers and property and requires a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
TSA has ONE job. Keep people from bringing dangerous items on planes. The data on electronic devices doesn't qualify as such. This actually makes flying less safe because it distracts TSA from keeping truly dangerous items off of planes.
Just a little devil's avocation here. One the items people often overlook as potentially dangerous is the people themselves. Searching electronic devices could give insights into the person whom owns it. Not saying this is right or even legal to be doing, just pointing out a reasonable justification.
Re: (Score:2)
Searching electronic devices could give insights into the person whom owns it. Not saying this is right or even legal to be doing, just pointing out a reasonable justification.
If it's neither ethical nor legal, it's pretty hard to argue that it's reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
We require warrants for that, because long ago The People realized kings would filtch through the papers of uppity political opponents to find something minor to tag them with.
That value-judgement has aready been made and placed in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never been convincing, since anyone can simply trade battery life for illicit cargo capacity. Instead of a nine-cell battery, you can have a three cell battery and 1/3 the run time -- but the machine will still operate just fine for that shorter time. The space formerly occupied by the other six cells can be filled with whatever you like. The risk has gone down over time as the machines get smaller and smaller, thus leaving less space to substitute contents.
You don't have to give up sight of your property (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You don't have to give up sight of your propert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up sight of your propert (Score:5, Insightful)
Could we please stop calling police and other LEOs "Pigs"?
To the best of my knowledge no member of the species Sus (includes boar, warthog, etc.) has ever done anything to deserve that kind of insult.
Call the TSA and LEO's what they are: "Brownshirts" [urbandictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The No Fly List (Score:3)
Law enforcement needs to go through the courts to punish (at least in theory). The TSA can just put you on a No Fly List. No appeal possible.
Do not mess with them.
(It always amazes me that the USA has the strongest constitution yet the ugliest laws. What would the USA be like without any constitution, better or far worse?)
Re: (Score:2)
"Do not mess with them."
I'm sure during the 1930s many of the German people felt the same about the Brownshirts and didn't do anything. We all know how well that worked don't we?
The TSA are capable of extrajudicial action that affects the lives and freedoms of people, and not just US Citizens. Better to speak now while we still have a voice than watch silently as another nation falls into tyranny.
Standard response (Score:5, Funny)
Stopped Flying... (Score:5, Interesting)
...because of TSA nonsense. If they're going to feel me up, if the airlines are going to beat me up, and if they want to look at my phone and computer, they're going to have to chase me down at 80 mph on I-10 to do it. I like to drive anyway, and they can take their big brother state and shove it. All they're doing, from the bag searches to these electronic searches, are illegal under the 4th Amendment according to Judge Napolitano on Fox News. He was very specific. Illegal. But they just do it anyway.
Stick my bags in the trunk, phone on my belt and computer on the seat beside me, and they're going to have to work to see any of 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they just waved me thru in both directions last week. They can't put together the people and infrastructure to go searching everything on that highway.
Re: (Score:2)
For that reason self-driving cars are really going to hurt airlines. It's a shame trains are so crappy in the US or they would be another good option. In Japan it's barely worth flying anywhere on the main islands because by the time you have been to the airport and flown the train is usually faster and drops you off right in the city centre.
Plausable Denability (Score:2)
This sound like a good use case for TrueCrypt's good ole hidden partition setup. Just put in the password for the clean boring copy of your OS for these goons.
A mystery (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Once at the destination use a VPN to access important information.
When back from travel enjoy the use of a normal phone and laptop again.
Re:Freedom is a fantasy, and so are your "rights". (Score:5, Informative)
The articles referenced by the ACLU are in regards to ehanced X-Ray scanning as well as the usual "swab for explosives residue", I see no articles anywhere online talking about TSA wanting to review files stored on a laptop hard drive.
AC just stop taking phones and laptops loaded up with sensitive business and personal information to areas where a search is expected and legal..
A search of the digital contents of an phone or laptop storage is neither expected, nor legal, when traveling purely domestically from one US airport to another.
I take day trips from a US airport to another US airport (e.g. ORD->LGA) for work, usually flying in early in the morning, attending meetings (at which I need both laptop and phone and the data within), then flying back the same day. I believe my employer would support me if I refused to unlock my encrypted device for it to be searched, and as the device belongs to my employer, they'd be the ones filing a suit if TSA or CBP confiscated the device in order to perform a search.
As my flights for work are always purely domestic travel, such a search is not expected, and probably not legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Shredding the 4th Amendment just to feel a little safer? Go fuck yourself and drink Draino. Unless of course you were just trolling. In that case, drink Draino and go fuck yourself. :p