Judge Allows Bradley Manning Supporter To Sue Government Over Border Search 129
Fluffeh writes "David Maurice House, an MIT researcher and Bradley Manning supporter, was granted the right to pursue a case against the government on Wednesday after a federal judge denied the government's motion to dismiss. 'This ruling affirms that the Constitution is still alive at the US border,' ACLU Staff Attorney Catherine Crump said in a statement. 'Despite the government's broad assertions that it can take and search any laptop, diary or smartphone without any reasonable suspicion, the court said the government cannot use that power to target political speech.' The agents confiscated a laptop computer, a thumb drive, and a digital camera from House and reportedly demanded, but did not receive, his encryption keys. DHS held onto House's equipment for 49 days and returned it only after the ACLU sent a strongly worded letter."
Not held in contempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised that he wasn't being held in contempt.. or similar.. for not handing over his keys..
Re:Not held in contempt? (Score:5, Informative)
Being held in contempt would require a judge making such an order that was violated... in this case, it was simply CBP/DHS.
Re:Not held in contempt? (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that, but it's meanIngless since everyone holds the DHS in contempt.
Re:Not held in contempt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't that mean the DHS should be arrested?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not held in contempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not held in contempt? (Score:5, Funny)
If being in contempt of DHS was punishable, we would all be in jail.
They are working on that.
Re: (Score:1)
dude, you're in jail too?! btw, the food suck here, amirite?
Re:Not held in contempt? (Score:5, Informative)
Try to keep up:
In United States v. Doe a federal appeals court 11th circuit ruled on feb 24 2012 that forcing decryption of ones laptop violates fifth amendment.[20][21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, it's so rare that you hear about our country doing something right. How very pleasant.
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest everyone read up on that ruling and understand it was applied to a very specific situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that only get them access to that specific file? Any other data they found during the process wouldn't be admissible. I get most of my understanding of US Law from TV :)
Inconsistent? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they can't violate the 1st Amendment, then why can they violate the 4th?
Is this just setting up a contradiction that will land in the Supreme Court?
Not Inconsistent... (Score:5, Insightful)
Violating the First Amendment is a violation of Apparent Freedom(tm) and is part of Political Theater(tm).
Violating the Fourth Amendment is a violation of Apparent Secrecy(tmp and is part of Security Theater(tm).
The DHS, in its puppet role over the TSA is in charge of Security Theater(tm) and so had no leg to stand on against the First Amendment.
If proper form were followed, the DHS would have picked a fight with House in a public place away from the border but within view of a political edifice, and "accidentally damaged" the material seized, then claimed it was known to contain child pornogrpahy because someone saw it over House's shoulder.
In short, this was all a failure of Due Process, as they used the entirely incorrect Rail Road in its persuit.
It'll be fixed in post production before air... just you wait...
Re: (Score:1)
You lost me at "persuit".
Re:Not Inconsistent... (Score:5, Insightful)
Railroading someone in pursuit of "Justice(tm)" has become commonplace in this country. Each form of railroading has its very onw pro-forma means and mode of operation. In drugs offenses, for instance, they get to weigh the packaging as part of the drug and assign "street value" that corresponds to no known street in order to lay on extra charges etc. In this case they used border seizure on a politically undersireable person. This was not the correct means or venue. e.g. "they picked the wrong railroad" to go after this guy. (the e instad of u was just a typo.)
Re:Not Inconsistent... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's really an intriguing interpretation of the economics at play. It makes you wonder why anybody would ever pay for penetration testing or audits of any kind...
Re: (Score:2)
because not all hackers get caught, and a hacked network can cost your company much more money than the cost of paying someone to secure it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Amendments are obviously written in order of importance. Border searches are more important than the 4th amendment but less than the 1st. I think that it in fact lies somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd amendments in terms of importance.
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh shit, that means I have to give up alcohol!
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Informative)
Under the "border search exception" of United States criminal law, international travelers can be searched without a warrant as they enter the U.S. Under the Barack Obama administration, law enforcement agents have aggressively used this power to search travelers' laptops, sometimes copying the hard drive before returning the computer to its owner. Courts have ruled that such laptop searches can take place even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why if I travel international from now on I remove my hard drives and replace them with a sanitized factory OS that only contains pictures of kittens and puppies. Anything really important can be retrieved over a VPN and then decrypted. Coming back into the US I have the hard drives removed and shipped before hand. Fuck em.
Of course that is a temporary measure and most likely useless when the DHS greatly expands its role to bus stops, truck weighing stations, interior border checkpoints, and the friendly mall nearest you.....
Eventually they will solve unemployment by making some barely educated moron, who graduated their fast track "degree in the security arts", pat me down entering and leaving my house.
Re: (Score:1)
don't forget freeway rest areas, the most likely
hangout for the DHS and TSA
jr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the definition of porn that it is sexual in nature? Perhaps if the kittens were in the process of being raped by older cats?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, for goodness sake, RTFA:
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, except outside U.S. borders or when the Congress decides to set up departments to do otherwise.
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute! Doesn't this mean if they copy the contents then they may be pirating software, films, and music? .
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a minute! Doesn't this mean if they copy the contents then they may be pirating software, films, and music? .
Someone call the RIAA, maybe these two behemoths can bludgeon each other to death over a long drawn out battle and leave the rest of us the fuck alone for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard more than my fair share of stories of evidence decreasing in weight and volume between arrest and the evidence locker (or even afterwards).
Of course I'm of the opinion that confiscating people's plant extracts and medicines and terrorizing them in the process should be against the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The same supreme court that allowed the creation of super PAC's or "corporations are people"?
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll just leave this here...
https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone [aclu.org]
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Funny)
See, I've always recommended this map [aclu.org], also by the ACLU, that shows exactly where in the US your civil liberties are being protected properly.
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Informative)
Warrantless, causeless border searches of closed containers by customs agents have been permissible since the beginning of the Republic under an act passed by the First Congress on July 31, 1787, merely 4 weeks after the ratification.
What makes this act constitutional is the power granted to Congress under the Constitution to regulate commerce between nations and enforce immigration laws.
It is VERY unlikely that the Supreme Court will touch this principle that has been in force for 230 years.
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes this act constitutional is the power granted to Congress under the Constitution to regulate commerce between nations and enforce immigration laws.
It is VERY unlikely that the Supreme Court will touch this principle that has been in force for 230 years.
And what would make it UN-constitutional is if the search and seizure were done to silence domestic political opposition. Which is why the judge is allowing the case to proceed.
Correct but also the GP is correct (Score:3)
He was answering the original question. Searches at the border don't violate the 4th amendment. It doesn't say "no searches" or anything like that, it say there can't be any "unreasonable searches".
What is reasonable varies with the situation. For your home, it is pretty high. A warrant is required in almost all cases. For the border, it is pretty low. The SC has decided there is no expectation of privacy there, that the government has a right to secure its borders, and so on and as such they don't even nee
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be a violation of the FIRST Amendment, not the FOURTH, which is what we were discussing.
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
First remember that the 4th Amendment does not actually require a warrant before the government can search your property. It just requires that searches be "reasonable." It's just that in most cases the courts have held that reasonableness requires a warrant. Not so, they have said, at the border where travelers expect that they might be searched and where the government has a heightened interest in controlling what moves in and out of the country. Imagine trying to enforce customs regulations without an ability to search! (Note that I don't agree with all of the powers that the government claims flow from this, but this should help to explain why at least some of what they do is OK under the 4th Amendment.)
But the government can't enforce its laws in a way that infringe on other rights. So, for example, the police can't decide to only pull over black people for speeding, even if they were actually speeding. Or, here, the government can't decide to only seize the property of people who belong to the wrong organizations (such as the Bradley Manning Support Network). That would violate the 1st Amendment just as pulling over only black people for speeding would violate the 14th.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but one of those Acts resulted in a revolution. For the other the people have just bent over and spread their buttocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inconsistent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine trying to enforce customs regulations without an ability to search!
Without the ability to search laptop hard drives? OK, I'll try to imagine that... Done. In fact, it was really easy. Here's how it goes:
You search things like trailers and trunks that carry physical things. Physical things that cannot cross the border via the Internet. Then, you don't search the hard drives, because they are not particularly useful for transporting Cuban cigars or Persian rugs.
Hard drives are only good for transporting data, which can travel just as easily through the Internet, or on a micro SD card that the border agents would not be able to find without stripping the vehicle to component parts. The increased probability of catching even a moderately intelligent data trafficker by checking laptop hard drives is vanishingly small, and utterly insufficient to be reasonable cause for avoiding a fourth amendment violation.
Which is to say; customs enforcement is not remotely credible as the actual, underlying justification for searching a hard drive.
Therefore, the objective of the executive in doing such searches must be something other than customs enforcement. Those objectives may be fine and wonderful things, but they are not directly related to crossing the border. The border crossing is the distinguishing event; the proximate source of reasonableness that prevents a violation of the fourth from a warrantless search. If the infraction in question is not directly related to the crossing of the border, the crossing of the border cannot be the means to satisfy the reasonableness requirement in a rational society.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree! That's why I said "Note that I don't agree with all of the powers that the government claims flow from this." I think that the legality of seizing hard drives is a closer call than most /.ers do, but I ultimately agree that it's unconstitutional. I think it's usually more helpful, though, for me to make the legal case against the /. conventional wisdom when I can than to just report my own opinion. (And, honestly, the /.ers are often so confidently smug in their completely incorrect legal opinions
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's usually more helpful, though, for me to make the legal case against the /. conventional wisdom when I can than to just report my own opinion.
I dig what you're saying, but the problem is the logic still is not there. If you're just saying, "This is what they argue", fine. I'm just saying, "This is why they are wrong."
Doesn't matter who says it is right, from a lackluster legal clerk with poor judgment to the SCOTUS, what they say is not necessarily what is right. Lots of case law and legal opini
Re: (Score:2)
First remember that the 4th Amendment does not actually require a warrant before the government can search your property. It just requires that searches be "reasonable."
That is the common interpretation, but (IMHO) it's based on a misreading of the text.
A "warrant" is nothing more or less than permission to do something which would normally be illegal. In this case, to perform a search, which involves violating the owner's property rights. Without a warrant, one has, by definition, no permission to do anything which a normal private citizen couldn't do. Given that, the 4th amendment is clearly saying that "reasonable" warrants (and thus involuntary searches) are defined as
Idea of amendments (Score:3)
The entire idea of amendments is flawed. The people have forgotten obviously that the Federal government only exists as an agreement among States (ratification is signing a contract), and the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. But this means that the governments has no powers except for those that are listed in Article 1, section 8, however amendments cloud this issue for the crowd (supposedly not for judges and politicians, right?) and the crowd believes that the government is
I'm hoping (Score:5, Funny)
For change.
Re:I'm hoping (Score:4, Funny)
Here. My $0.02. They are now yours. That's all you'll get.
Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
This country was founded (in part) to protect people from the very shenanigans going on now re: unlawful search and seizure. Most of this crap is being justified under the umbrella of the "war on terror." The current occupant was elected by in large to combat the Bush era Patriot Act and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we have met the enemy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
All i'm seeing is the same shit sandwich with different kinds of bread.
Sorry, not hungry.
Re: (Score:3)
Me too.
But we can vote on gay marriage or some other tiny issue. The big issues have nobody to vote for and have not since Carter. Nobody honest is going to fly into office after a disaster because those guys are not allowed to rise in todays system even Obama coming "from nowhere" was fake, it was to appease the public with an outsider and a feeling of change helped by the symbolism of his skin color. Even the backlash is now engineered.
Some of us "depressing" people saw all this coming but nobody can ha
Re: (Score:2)
Even if both sides are interchangeable, suppose everyone alternates between voting D one election, and R the next, etc. Then we're ensuring that no president gets more than four years, and once they're out it's highly unlikely they'll be a viable candidate again, 4-8 years later: Some other guy from the party will eat their second lunch.
So the punishment is they get power for a few years, and then they're has-beens jus
Re: (Score:1)
You're assuming both parties aren't working for the same people. If they are, then the people they work for could give a rats ass how often we vote them out. We're just trading one puppet for another.
Re: (Score:1)
More than two sides exist.
Re:Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
I've already talked about this in other threads over the past few years, but here it is again.
Last presidential election I was asked to leave my voting district after asking for a write in vote because the candidate I wanted was not available.
I even called the police department about it, expecting to have an officer preset to insure I didn't "disturb the peace".
Instead I was told to just vote for one of the people on the ballot and play nice.
How can we get anyone through the system that isn't a republican or democrat if they aren't allowed on the ballot, on TV, and aren't even allowed to participate in the "Open Debates" in places like ohio?
Re:Police State (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Start with local and state elections. Get a few people in and show that they're competent. Then stand for congress.
All the while that you're working on the political machine, the political machine is working on you. By the time you actually achieve any power, you're beholden to the same special interests you set out to oppose.
The only time I know of political parties becoming established and successful more quickly than this have been in new democracies
Exactly. The only chance we have is to call America
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you imagine voting in the primaries would help? Who would you have voted for in 2008 who was a more credible agent for reform than Obama? He was the most credible agent for change, not just in 2008, but in my lifetime. He not only didn't deliver on the change, he accelerated the abuses he was elected to reform. Working with the parties is a hopeless endeavor.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously a multiparty system would not create better candidates out of thin air. If people we want to be elected to office are not running for election, it could be due to the two party system. However I believe what discourages good people from running for office is far more complex than that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I would not have voted for Obama under any circumstances. The most credible agent for change in my lifetime was still not a credible agent for change.
The problem is not just the two party system. It's winner take all elections. It's gerrymandering. It's riders on "must pass" bills. It's the lack of a "no confidence" option on the ballot. It's private financing of elections. It's pervasive lobbying. It's legal bribery.
If it were just a matter of getting another party on the ballot, it wouldn't b
Re: (Score:2)
In the last Presidential election there were 5 parties on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning. The problem is that the media are all owned by the 1%, and so are the two major parties. The media have convinced almost everyone that a vote for a loser is wasted (so I guess you wasted your vote if you voted for McCain). He who controls information rules.
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones I saw on our ballot were Dem, Rep, Green and Libertarian....
Also, is there any way to establish which parties are on enough ballots before the vote?
It would be nice to be able to avoid the mathmatically screwed candidates ahead of time.
Re: (Score:2)
There were six on my ballot. The Constitution Party probably wasn't on yours, but they were on enough to win. It would be nice to know ahead of time who was on enough ballots, but afaik you can only see the last election, not the next.
Re: (Score:2)
We could change it of course. We could change the constitution, which would require forcing most members of congress to make a vote that would hurt both republican and democratic parties. So that's a technical possibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the more important election is actually the primary, not the general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"We have met the enemy, and he is us. We're the ones who assumed BHO would be different from GWB."
You can vote against Obama in the coming election.
I voted for him in the first election but now that I know he
is a liar I will vote for his opponent if only to see Obama's lying ass
replaced with a different liar.
That's sad. You think you're being clever but you are doing exactly what they want you to do. BHO, GWB, etc may have different faces but they all work for the same side. You think you're striking a blow against BHO, and you are, but in doing so you ignore the fact your enemy wins nonetheless - tactically it's a victory, but strategically it's another defeat.
Republicans and Democrats alternate in screwing you and every time it happens you run to the other one, only to be screwed once more.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides pointing out the obvious as an AC on /. what do you intend to do about it?
Strongly worded letter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, but I can point you to the many strongly-worded letters I've sent to politicians, manufacturers, restaurants, and TV Guide, concerning various topics. They're all excellent examples of strongly-worded letters that had no effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Return his equipment OR ELSE.....!
Signed,
ACLU
Re:Strongly worded letter (Score:4, Funny)
Return his equipment OR ELSE.....!
We'll put you in the COMFY CHAIR!
Re: (Score:2)
Considering it was the ACLU that sent it I wouldn't be surprised if threats of litigation were included.
Re:Strongly worded letter (Score:5, Informative)
Here it is:
http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/legal/re_david_house/fong_robles_vincent_re_david_House_12-21-10.pdf [aclum.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Strongly worded letter (Score:4, Funny)
Where's the wit? The wow-words? The insulting, demeaning tone? The hidden threats?
And, at five pages, that novel was four pages too long.
God save the Queen.
Re: (Score:2)
Look Out! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So long as it's not a French Letter.
Another ass wiped with our Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
because the average american hates the constitution and any time you say we should follow it people call you a "fucking libertarian" or a paultard... and they wonder why they live in a police state...
Re: (Score:3)
No, not that much changed is the problem; even that part about killing US citizen terrorists was claimed to be already possible from a previous law (which expired or wasn't explicit enough to satisfy John McCain; i forget which but the OTHER candidate wrote the bill... and I think a veto wouldn't have stopped it anyhow, which they knew wasn't going to happen before they voted.)
It is that no ass kissing politician (does anybody vote for anything else?) has the guts to stop something that they KNOW will be us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that our asinine politicians in both parties have no respect for the Constitution anymore?
Because violating it carries no personal consequences.
Equate constitutional violations to treason and you'll see how fast things change.
Can We Search You ? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes We Can !
Re: (Score:2)
That's Barack O'Bob the Builder for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFS:
David Maurice House, an MIT researcher and Bradley Manning supporter, was granted the right to pursue a case against the government on Wednesday after a federal judge denied the government's motion to dismiss.
The administration was against allowing the lawsuit. The courts thought otherwise. We have multiple branches of government, and they're not all run by the President.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
See that little black flag? Click it, it alerts /. staff. I clicked the flag on a spam post earlier this afternoon and it was gone in five minutes.
The spammer's not going to see your reply, he probably doesn't even have an account.
Re: (Score:2)
Every now and then I like to call the business being advertised in that manner, and point out comments like the GP. It's good for a laugh.
Re: (Score:2)