Slashdot Log In
DHS Allowed To Take Laptops Indefinitely
Posted by
kdawson
on Friday August 01, @08:08AM
from the reasonable-expectation dept.
from the reasonable-expectation dept.
andy1307 writes with a Washington Post story giving details of Department of Homeland Security policies for border searches of laptops and other electronic devices (as well as papers). (We have been discussing border searches for a while now.) DHS says such procedures have long been in place but were "disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter," according to the article. Here is a link to the policy (PDF, 5 pages). "Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed. Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption, or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement... DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies — which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens — are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism... The policies cover 'any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form,' including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover 'all papers and other written documentation,' including books, pamphlets and 'written materials commonly referred to as "pocket trash..."'"
Related Stories
[+]
Senate Hearing On Laptop Seizures At US Border 526 comments
suitablegirl writes "As we have discussed, Customs and Border Patrol is allowed to seize and download data from laptops or electronic devices of Americans returning from abroad. At a Senate hearing tomorrow, privacy advocates and industry groups will urge the lawmakers to take action to protect the data and privacy of Americans not guilty of anything besides wanting to go home."
[+]
FISA and Border Searches of Laptops 416 comments
With the recent attention to the DHS's draconian policy on laptop searches at borders, a blog post by Steven Bellovin from last month is worth wider discussion. Bellovin extrapolates from the DHS border policy on physical electronic devices and asks why authorities wouldn't push to extend it to electronic data transfers. "...it would seem to make little difference if the information is 'imported' into the US via a physical laptop or via a VPN, or for that matter by a Web connection. The right to search a laptop for information, then, is equivalent to the right to tap any and all international connections, without a warrant or probable cause. (More precisely, one always has a constitutional protection against 'unreasonable' search and seizure; the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is.)"
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.

Degradation of rights for nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
The worst part (Score:5, Insightful)
What is even worse is that if you try to use encryption to maintain a level of privacy and security, that will just mean they'll keep it longer while they try to crack it.
Reply to This
Parent
Their law versus ours (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because their little law says they can do it doesn't mean it doesn't run afoul of the Contitutional protections. Were this to be challenged, it would be killed pretty quickly: one cannot instigate such as this in the name of "terrorism" and not expect at least one challenge on "unreasonable search and seizure." You cannot fight global terrorism by turning the USA into a police-state. All that accomplishes is angering the populace....and you remember the last time Americans became angry with their government?...
Reply to This
Re:Their law versus ours (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Their law versus ours (Score:5, Insightful)
and you remember the last time Americans became angry with their government?...
They were beaten with clubs, battons and shot with riot rounds?
Reply to This
Parent
Sorry for the Godwin Violation (Score:5, Interesting)
But...
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to at least consider that it is a bird of the family anatidae (apologies to Douglas Adams)
This is outrageous! and a 4th amendment violation.
Hitler may have lost WWII, but the forces of fascism and totalitarianism are still fighting the war and are winning.
Reply to This
Ah, Penny Arcade predicted this. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was funny the first time I read it, it's scary that it may be more true now. )=
Reply to This
DHS IT (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
I can only think of two words (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally I would put together a verbose, and perhaps even eloquent, response to such information. But I can only think of two words.
Bull shit.
We are losing, people. We are losing our rights and there will be more to come. That our own personal property can be seized "to fight terrorism" on the terms presented is absolute, unadulterated, pure and uncut bull shit.
Reply to This
Re:I can only think of two words (Score:5, Insightful)
FASCIST PIGFUCKERS.
Run while you can. If you think Obama's gonna make it all better, you're nuts. The whole imperial mess is rolling into a death spiral. Run while you can.
RS
Reply to This
Parent
Absolutely reasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)
DHS officials said that the newly disclosed policies -- which apply to anyone entering the country, including US citizens -- are reasonable and necessary to prevent terrorism...
My god. I can understand that they think those policies are necessary, but nobody can believe that is reasonable.
"We can take everything you own and keep it as long as we want. Only if we feel like it. We think this is a reasonable exchange, you get to enter the country, we get to steal your stuff"
Reply to This
Kleptocracy, anyone ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yeah, you'll get your stuff back in, uh, fourty years. Sorry, rules are rules. And only if it doesn't get lost or misplaced until then."
And when are they going to start confiscating pacemakers and hearing aids ? Last I've heard, these things can also store information in digital form.
Reply to This
Toilet paper... (Score:5, Interesting)
Its nice that government agencies regard the Constitution as toilet paper.
What they fail to realize is that all their power originates with that document, and in a way, it's like a contract between the government and the people. Since the government has decided to violate the terms (breach of contract), then maybe we should stop recognizing their authority, since they have chosen to invalidate that document that is the sole source of that authority?
Reply to This
I'd rather have freedom than "security" (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Distressing quote from the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Customs Deputy Commissioner Jayson P. Ahern said the efforts "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." In a statement submitted to Feingold for a June hearing on the issue, he noted that the executive branch has long had "plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border without probable cause or a warrant" to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering the country.
Perhaps it's just a poor characterization of his statements, but it appears that Mr. Ahern just doesn't get it. Regardless of what authority the executive branch has had, he needs a pretty damn strong argument as to why these efforts don't infringe on "Americans'" privacy. I can't think of any reasonable argument that they do not. Whether it's a *justified* infringement is a somewhat subtler question, but these powers are certainly subject to abuse. Further, even the obscenely few restrictions on preserving the data after the investigation is completed are little consolation in the face of the many stories of data mishandling by government entities. Mr. Ahern desperately needs to get a clue.
Further, even as an American I take exception to the idea that it's only relevant for our government to protect "Americans'" privacy, as is implied by this quote. Again, it might be due to incomplete quoting, but I somehow doubt that. As a scientist who frequently works with international collaborators, it's really true that communities outside the U.S. are deciding to keep their business out of this country due to the ridiculous policies for entering. It's often just not worth the effort. Way to go, Executive Branch!!
Reply to This
Analog form? (Score:5, Informative)
That includes BRAINS!
Reply to This
Any device capable of storing information... (Score:5, Funny)
The policies cover 'any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form
My brain is a device that can record patterns in an analog form. If they want it, they'll have to get it over my dead body ;-)
Reply to This
Industrial Espionage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:Industrial Espionage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad.
Wouldn't that constitute industrial espionage to decrypt said information?
It's only illegal if you're not the government.
What if a DHS employee has a relative who competes in that field?
Good for him !
I can only imagine the potential messes there.
You misspelled "opportunities".
Reply to This
Parent
Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the magic words!
I reckon you could even implement gun control in the US, if you reported that peados were using guns!
Reply to This
A little more context... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just trying to provide a little context. If you're going to complain about it, at least acknowledge a little bit of history here.
Reply to This
Re:Books? Any written materials? (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell does this not violate the "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." part of the 4th amendment, where is the SCOTUS case that ruled that US citizens upon returning to the US borders do not enjoy the protections of the constitution?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Books? Any written materials? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be *in* the US for your rights to be in effect. Once you're at border security, you're not in the US anymore, so your rights don't apply. At least that's the argument, however dubious.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Books? Any written materials? (Score:5, Informative)
unreasonable searches and seizures
Searches at the border are legally reasonable. This has been held for a very very long time.
Since everybody loves Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception [wikipedia.org]
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Books? Any written materials? (Score:5, Funny)
"That's a nice tattoo you got there, sir, but what does it say ? We better send it over to the NSA for decryption. Now step over here, this will hurt only a little ..."
Reply to This
Parent