Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FISA and Border Searches of Laptops

Posted by kdawson on Tue Aug 05, 2008 08:19 AM
from the not-giving-up-my-keys-no-sir dept.
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.)"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] DHS Allowed To Take Laptops Indefinitely 1123 comments
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..."'"
[+] Ask Slashdot: Tips For Taking Your Laptop Into and Out of the US? 940 comments
casualsax3 writes "I'm going to be taking a week long round trip from NYC to Puerto Vallarta Mexico sometime next month, and I was planning on taking my laptop with me. I'll probably want to rip a few movies and albums to the drive in order to keep busy on the flight. More important though, is that I'm also going to be taking pictures while I'm there, and storing them on the laptop. With everything in the news, I'm concerned that I'll have to show someone around the internals of my laptop coming back into the US. The pictures are potentially what upsets me the most, as I feel it's an incredible violation of my privacy. Do I actually need to worry about this? If so, should I go about hiding everything? I've heard good things about Truecrypt. Is it worth looking into or am I being overly paranoid?"
[+] Hardware: US District Ct. Says Defendant Must Provide Decrypted Data 767 comments
An anonymous reader writes "If you're planning on traveling internationally with a laptop, consider the following: District Court Overturns Magistrate Judge in Fifth Amendment Encryption Case. Laptop searches at the border have been discussed many times previously. This is the case where a man entered the country allegedly carrying pornographic material in an encrypted file on his laptop. He initially cooperated with border agents during the search of the laptop then later decided not to cooperate citing the Fifth Amendment. Last year a magistrate judge ruled that compelling the man to enter his password would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Now in a narrow ruling, US District Judge William K. Sessions III said the man had waived his right against self-incrimination when he initially cooperated with border agents." sohp notes that "the order is not that he produce the key — just that he provide an unencrypted copy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Old school (Score:5, Funny)

    by IceCreamGuy (904648) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:23AM (#24478327) Homepage
    I have a teletype connected to a tin can that crosses the border with a long peice of twine, connected to another tin can connected to a modem.
  • WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:27AM (#24478365)

    What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?

    • Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)

      by Ihlosi (895663) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:35AM (#24478427)

      What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?

      "And if they take your laptop, give them your digital camera, iPod and cellphone, too." (Mt 5,40, paraphrased)

      • Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)

        by pitchpipe (708843) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:03AM (#24478627)

        the issue is what the definition of 'unreasonable' is

        With this Administration's tortured definition of torture, one shouldn't be surprised when they have an unreasonable definition of unreasonable.

    • Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hognoxious (631665) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:37AM (#24478439) Homepage Journal

      What Would Jesus Think Was Unreasonable?

      Purely a guess: getting nailed to a log just for suggesting that people should try to be a little bit nicer to each other.

    • Re:WWJTWU (Score:5, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:23AM (#24478829)

      If Jesus was here today, I know EXACTLY what he would do.

      He would scream "Metal carts, pulled by unseen demonic horses! Iron mountains!" in Aramaic, then go hide somewhere.

  • The gov agrees. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WK2 (1072560) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:32AM (#24478399) Homepage

    The government agrees that they should have the right to investigate each and every connection that goes in or out of the United States, no warrant required. It's impractical to actually watch every connection in real time, or to store them all, but they certainly believe they should have the option to investigate whichever connections they choose at a whim.

      • Re:The gov agrees. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:18AM (#24478769) Homepage

        Mod parent up. Only 2 years ago it was impractical to sniff all traffic and identify P2P and insert reset packets. It was unreasonable to record all phone conversations. It was unreasonable to have thousands of cameras around the UK monitoring everything. It was unreasonable to have cameras that recognize license plates and automatically bill you for running red lights.

  • No offense, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:34AM (#24478411)
    No offense, but the ridiculous visa situation, warrant less searches and other issues certainly will secure the US borders.

    After all, any country is safer if nobody wants to go and visit it anymore.

    "I want everyone to remember why they need us" - liberties and freedoms that are eroded in the name of security and protection never seem to return once the threat is lifted again, and each one is another step on the path to Totalitarianism.
  • Unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:37AM (#24478437) Journal

    Since the Supreme Court has said that the Constitutional limits on Copyright, "for a limited time", that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means, then it follows that "unreasonable" means whatever Congress says it means, too.

    The cops opened my unlocked garage and "had a look around", I guess that's reasonable. They searched my car because it was parked outside a dope house (I had no idea; my passengers were collecting money owed them by a slumlord they were cleaning houses for) as well as my person. I guess that's not unreasonable, either.

    Why is it they had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but not other drugs?

    The Supreme court, in effect, says that the Constitutuon is meaningless. We, the people, no longer have any rights. And you can bet your wife's ass that they're already reading your mail and seeing who you connect to on the internet. The people running things today don't believe in the rule of law.

  • by slashqwerty (1099091) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:39AM (#24478451)
    At the postal museum in Washington, D.C. a sign reads:

    At the beginning of the new America, nearly all the news came by mail. When the Constitution was signed, it was rushed by post riders to every town that had a printing press. And that's how the newspapers were able to bring the resounding news of how we were to govern ourselves. The newspapers knew of it first by mail.

    In England, for centuries, the mail was frequently scrutinized by agents of the Crown or of the Parliament. It could be worth your life to write a letter that might be seen as having the seeds of treason. This did not happen here. From the beginning, by and large, the U.S. mails have been free of eyes other than our own and those of the sender.

    To the framers of the Constitution, the mail made the engine of democracy run--along with the newspapers. And newspapers then printed a good deal of correspondence. Rufus Putnam, a key military figure in the Revolutionary War, said, "The knowledge diffused among the people by newspapers, by correspondence between friends" was crucial to the future of the nation. "Nothing can be more fatal to a republican government than ignorance among its citizens."

    As a journalist, I have sometimes been asked where my leads for stories come from. Much of the time, they come from opening the mail. Readers from all over the country send personal stories, newspaper clippings, local court decisions, and student newspaper editorials arguing for the First Amendment rights of students. There is no other way I would have known about these stories except through the mail. It is through letters that I often receive highly confidential stories about unfairness in the justice system from people who would not trust any other form of communication.

    The framers of the Constitution knew how vital the mail would be when Article I was written to protect privacy of communication through the mail.

    Nat Hentoff is a columnist for the Washington Post and the Village Voice, and the author of Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee. How the Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:43AM (#24478503) Homepage
    Here's my prediction, on record [codemonkeyramblings.com]: this policy will be a real boon for micro laptop companies like Asus. Who is going to want to travel with an expensive laptop that can get snatched up by an avaristic or paranoid border cop? It bothers me to no end that they don't need due processes for this because I have a new MacBook Pro. The thing is worth $2,000 and is precisely the sort of thing that would become a target of something like this [theagitator.com] where the cops turned seized cars into a private car rental service for their own pleasure.

    So I guess what'll happen is that people will take an Eee PC with them, and then download the data as needed from some offsite backup service. That, and the whole problem of people avoiding business travel to the United States.
  • HR6702 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oh no, it's Dixie (1332795) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:11AM (#24478701)
    If HR6702 [loc.gov] is passed, this dangerous course can be reversed.

    Sec 2(a)(1) sums it up nicely:

    Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no search of the digital contents of the device or media may be based on the power of the United States to search a person and that person's possessions upon entry into the United States, unless that search is based on a reasonable suspicion regarding that person.

  • Streetlight effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drgould (24404) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:13AM (#24478713)

    I forget where I read it, but I recently a news article that mentioned the "Streetlight Effect".

    We all know the classic joke. A man is walking down the street when he sees a drunk, on his knees, looking for something under a streetlight. The man stops and asks, "What are you looking for?" and the drunk replies. "My keys." So the man gets down on his knees to help him find his keys.

    After a half-hour of fruitless searching the man asks, "Well, where did you lose them?" and the drunk replies, "Over in that alley, but the light's better over here."

    This sort of security theater [wikipedia.org] reminds me of that joke.

    We can't find Bin Laden. We can't stop al Qaeda. We can't (won't) secure our borders with Mexico. But we damn well make air travel a living hell for millions of innocent air travelers because, well, the light's better over here.

    • You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Silver Sloth (770927) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:28AM (#24478371)
      Much as I agree that there will probably be a change in course, rights, once take away, are very slow to return. I can foresee that a new president keen to lose his 'inexperienced' image would be reluctant to take that strong a stand against the powers that be at Langley, etc.
        • Re:You wish... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:51AM (#24478547) Journal

          Sorry, you can't blame this one on Bush. As much as you'd like to.

          But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush, or more appropriately, the people that voted for him. Before all the hysteria, it I was clean, they had to let me go. Not any more. Pretty soon they'll be able to hold me for not having a laptop for them to search. They'll think I'm hiding something. That's like being told I should carry some cash on me so the mugger has something to walk away with, otherwise he'll get pissed and just shoot me. Every border crossing is turning into a mugging.

      • by jacquesm (154384) <j&ww,com> on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:42AM (#24478501) Homepage

        the best taxes are the ones that are labelled 'temporary', those are most certain to never disappear.

      • by forgotten_my_nick (802929) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:44AM (#24478515)

        "he next administration (assuming Obama wins) will probably be more interested in taking away our "treasure"."

        Actually I hate to be the one to break it to you but your treasure is already gone. what is likely to happen is your going to get the bill for it by the next president.

        • by houghi (78078) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:11AM (#24478695) Homepage

          Yes and the other party will not stop pointing out how the Democrats increased taxes (to pay for it all) and people will buy into it electing Republican again in 4 years who then will continue to rape your rights and take your money. (Democrats and Republicans can be easily changed above)

          As long as people do not start voting for an alternative, there will be no alternative. If you say that voting for an alternative will not work, please repair your democratic system before you try to export it.

        • by currently_awake (1248758) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @09:16AM (#24478741)
          your laptop contains copywrite material, that you probably don't own. under us law you need the copywrite owner's permission to copy this. the border agent is violating copywrite law when he/she images your drive. if you have a login then that counts as a copywrite protection device, and that means a dmca violation as well. i'm surprised nobody has taken this to court yet.
    • Re:constitution...? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hyppy (74366) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:37AM (#24478443)
      The Constitution applies to any individual on U.S. soil, not just citizens.

      Although, for purposes of border control, almost any search is considered lawful.
    • by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:49AM (#24478533)
      From here [cnet.com]: At a Senate hearing in June, Larry Cunningham, a New York prosecutor who is now a law professor, defended laptop searches--but not necessarily seizures--as perfectly permissible. Preventing customs agents from searching laptops "would open a vulnerability in our border by providing criminals and terrorists with a means to smuggle child pornography or other dangerous and illegal computer files into the country," Cunningham said.

      In our (as a country) fear of Terrorism and our fear for the safety of our children, we are slowly strangling ourselves of our vitality. Soon, we as a country will be like scared little children hiding under our beds from a thunderstorm. And in the meantime, the rest of the World will eventually pass us by.