posted
If you are traveling internationally through a US airport, Homeland Security can seize your laptop and search its contents, including sharing the material with other agencies and even non-government groups, without probable cause.
I heard about this one a couple of months ago but figured it wouldn't stand up to a court challenge. I guess I had too much faith in the court system.
I find this disturbing on many levels. First, It would be a catastrophe for my work if my laptop were seized and held for months. I do work while I'm traveling and there is nothing to protect me from loosing months of time do to this type of seizure. If they are trying to prevent me from smuggling dangerous information into the country, I'm pretty sure they'd seize all the backups and copies I'm carrying as well (otherwise seizure would be utterly ineffective). This has the potential to cost travelers huge amounts of money.
For example, on my recent flight out of JFK, both my husband and I were carrying presentations for use in seminars and at an international symposium. If those had been seized by border control, it would have ruined the purpose of our visit, which cost thousands of dollars. Since I have been in Muenster, I have been writing programs and papers and collecting data, all of which would be lost if my computer and its backup were seized by border security. I can't just wait several months to get that stuff back.
Second, although business information is protected under the policy, personal information, such as medical and financial records, are not.
My computer, like those of most professors, is used for both my work and my personal stuff. It contains proprietary information on my research, students grades, grant proposals, papers to be reviewed, and sometimes even patents, much of that exists in a gray area that isn't actually "business" or "personal". It also contains a ton of personal information including financial records, passwords to various accounts, tax returns, medical stuff and so forth.
Third, there is no protection from being prosecuted based on data found on your computer even if the crime had nothing to do with border security.
I can't believe the courts upheld this one. There is no way that I can do business travel without my laptop. Removing all the proprietary information from my laptop before traveling internationally would be highly impractical. About the only thing I could imagine doing is maintaining a second laptop for use only when I travel that didn't contain any personal information. But even that would be difficult and wouldn't save me from loosing the work I did while I'm on the road.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only is it a horrible trampling of rights, as with many homeland security measures, it's completely ineffective.
How much does it cost to mail a USB thumb drive to your final destination with whatever Threat Level Orange material saved on it?
Again, the government succeeds in raking the innocent over the coals, while leaving mile-wide opportunities for the true criminals.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh, I would've thought that the 9th Circuit would've knocked this one down.
I think the biggest point for me is the futility of the action. Getting around this particular type of search, if the idea is to glean information on a terrorist attack, is ridiculously cheap and easy. I think this causes an undue burden on travelers and allows investigators access to a wealth of information that they have no reasonable cause to need access to. Further, I think it's a serious invasion of privacy. I get that sometimes exceptions need to be made in the name of security and that an every changing and cunning enemy requires more tools to fight them...but this strikes me as a gross smearing of the 4th amendment for likely very little to absolutely no gain. A 12 year old could figure out how to get around this if he wanted to. Besides, what a seriously inefficient use of manpower. If they actually wanted to comb through MY computer to look for information of a terrorist attack, and read every word, listen to every song, view every picture, and look at every file, it would take a person months to look through it all just to confirm that there's nothing there. It seems like a whole lot of wasted time for a very easily avoidable method of transporting information.
quote:Third, there is no protection from being prosecuted based on data found on your computer even if the crime had nothing to do with border security.
I think this would already be covered by existing law. If they seize your laptop based on the belief that you are a terrorist, and then they find that you're committing tax fraud or something, I don't see how they could prosecute. I think if not the letter, that absolutely violates the spirit of the 4th amendment, which is there, if for no other reason, than to prevent fishing expeditions. They can't just take your stuff and try their hardest to pin SOMETHING on you. I think taking your property without reasonable cause is wrong in the first place, but I think if you could sustain that in court, then anything else they might find is fruit of the poisonous tree, they can't use it. I'm sure Dagonee could give a much better explanation on the specifics, as I know there are exceptions to every rule, but I don't know what they are in this case.
To me, this is exactly like barging into your home office and looking through all your documents and personal files. A lifetime and for that matter your entire life's data could be on that thing, and just because they feel like it isn't a good enough reason to get access to something that would normally take a court order to justify.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
After reading both decisions, I'd have to say that as a matter of legal precedent, the 9th looks pretty sound. The district court based their decisions mostly on two principles: 1. That some reasonable suspicion is necessary for searches, and that that suspicion must be justified by increasing evidence to match an increasingly invasive search. 2. That laptops are in a separate catagory from other personal possessions do to the large volume of personal data they can hold, and that searching them constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy etc.
The 9th said that no, there is no need for any sort of justifiable reasoning when making searches. At the border they can pretty much do whatever they want to whoever they want in terms of search and seizure. 2. Laptops are not in a separate category at all.
And I was apparently wrong when it comes to whether or not they can prosecute based on information found from a search that began with no purpose, as it has already happened and been upheld in other cases that didn't involve a laptop.
I personally much rather prefer the reasoning and justification that the District court used to strike down the case. I think the 9th had what looks like at a cursory glance to be a sound footing for their decision based on precedent from other circuit court cases and supreme court decisions, but I think the discussion of laptops and other large media storage devices is something new and separate from a piece of paper you're carrying in your pocket at customs. I'm not sure if I can fault the 9th from a legal standpoint, but I think the spirit of the 4th is being violated with this decision.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Congress doesn't pass a law making that illegal, I hope business travelers riot on the Capital's front lawn.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting to me is that the constitutionality of routine searches of papers and effects of people entering or leaving the country has been well established for at least 120 years, yet it wasn't until laptops became an issue that there was a large outcry.
quote:If they seize your laptop based on the belief that you are a terrorist, and then they find that you're committing tax fraud or something, I don't see how they could prosecute.
If the seizure and subsequent search is legal, then anything found is admissible, even if unrelated to whatever reason justified the search.
I think a statute needs to be passed to put some limits on this. But I think it would be a huge departure from precedent to declare this unconstitutional.
Of course, that precedent could be wrong. But that's not likely to lead to any change.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I travel to give presentations or might work on something on the road, I always have backup online copies (usually an email attachment to myself or, for really large items, free storage at DropSend). I don't do that with controlled patient information, of course, but then I wouldn't carry that on a personal laptop.
Online backups are routine for both me and my husband, and that has helped us several times. It wouldn't occur to me to do otherwise. I think we've talked about this here before -- i.e., what would you lose if your laptop/PC crashed? Currently we keep both hard and online copies of anything important, so we have double protection. Gmail will accept and store an enormous number of attachments, as will our work emails (though the limit is lower there).
As regards the decision, I'm of the same mind as Dagonee.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do the same thing, CT - usually online (gmail works great) plus a USB key.
I think Rabbit's datasets are considerably bigger than ours - if I recall correctly, she routinely works with 10s of gigabytes of data for a single project.
People worried more about disclosure than having their work stopped should look into Truecrypt. Just be prepared for the possible issues that can arise (think about how customs would react if you refused to give them the combination to a lock box).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've used large datasets for national surveys, and Dave even moreso. He ended up getting a deductible business account online for his database storage that allows up to 500GB. I think. We never max it out.
Large files certainly are a pain, though. We ended up having to pay for enough online access if we wanted to access very large files. However, for powerpoints and presentations, even with large pictures (I do one with 60+ medical photos that I can't send by mail, at least not unzipped), we were able to find online storage for free. But very large SPSS files had to be [compressed] [see second edit below] then sent to DropSend for storage.
---
Edited to add: The zip function was key. We could store large amounts online, but often they needed to be zipped to be sent there and retrieved. Dave has done at least 30GB files this way, I know.
---
Second edit: A correction -- for the very large files, we (I think) maxed out on zip and ended up using jar? or tar? Something like that. It handled 30GB fine, though.
posted
It seems to me that searching is one thing and seizing is quite another. Does customs have the right to take anything they like for no reason at all?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tar just combines the files. Most likely you tar'd them, then gzipped them (different from zip, commonly used with tar).
Nowadays, you might strongly consider sticking your files in Amazon's S3 (using something like JungleDisk), especially if you only need the files there some of the time. You pay for exactly the storage and bandwidth you use, and the fees are very reasonable.
I must admit, I like that we have plenty of storage at work. Several terabytes at the moment, and we're buying something on the order of 36 terabytes in the next two months.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, now. I'm sure the relevant agencies would only perform such a seizure with good cause. We need to have faith that those in power are acting in our best interests, and would never abuse such powers.
Ha, whoo!... Hee!... I'm going to go beat my head against the wall in a corner now.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People worried more about disclosure than having their work stopped should look into Truecrypt. Just be prepared for the possible issues that can arise (think about how customs would react if you refused to give them the combination to a lock box).
Do you know anything about how much disclosure is required for encryption keys? I seem to remember a federal court case a while back that ruled that keys did not have to be surrendered, but I can't seem to recall the name of the case or how it did on appeal.
That said, this is the exact reason that truecrypt hidden volumes exist. Anyone worried about being forced to disclose their encryption keys could create a hidden volume within the normal one. The system is designed so that it should be impossible to tell if a hidden volume exists, so if the normal volume has a few files that might plausibly be something private, then the hidden volume would likely be safe from being noticed.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I do the same thing, CT - usually online (gmail works great) plus a USB key.
I think Rabbit's datasets are considerably bigger than ours - if I recall correctly, she routinely works with 10s of gigabytes of data for a single project.
My files aren't actually quite that large. I think the largest single files I've worked with are about 1.5 GB. Although on my last data collection trip to Seattle, I did return with 10s of gigabyts of data. I should add that those files are raw data files, not the presentations I would carry to present in a seminar or conference. I think the largest presentation I've done was around 80 MB.
And while I know that I can backup the writing and programming I'm currently doing here in Germany on an internet accessable site, its a big inconvenience. Backing up my whole computer online is quite slow and selecting the specific new files is tedious and prone to error. I wonder if there is backup software available that will do what a time machine does, that is back up my full hard drive once and then automatically update backing update changes.
Of course I always carry backups, either on DVDs, flash drives or a portable hard drive. That should be adequate if something is damaged or lost. I suspect that if customs decided to seize my computer, however, they'd seize all the other data storage devices I was carrying as well. I mean, if their goal is keep me from smuggling child pornography of plans for a bomb into the country, it wouldn't make any sense to let me keep my backups.
quote:People worried more about disclosure than having their work stopped should look into Truecrypt. Just be prepared for the possible issues that can arise (think about how customs would react if you refused to give them the combination to a lock box).
I'm not so much worried about disclosure per se. I do typically carry things like student grades on my computer that I am legally required not to disclose, but I've never considered them sensitive enough to encrypt. Maybe I should. Despite that, I am offended by the basic principal that I should have to encrypt my personal information to protect it from the government. Even though there is nothing in my bank statements that would be incriminating, as a US citizen I thought I had the right to keep my private stuff private. It doesn't seem like that right should be dependent on my willingness to buy expensive encryption software or a separate laptop for use on international trips.
There would be a certain amusement value in having Homeland Security spend months to unlock encrypted files on my computer, only to find a bunch of student lab reports.
[ August 03, 2008, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's interesting to me is that the constitutionality of routine searches of papers and effects of people entering or leaving the country has been well established for at least 120 years, yet it wasn't until laptops became an issue that there was a large outcry.
Interesting perhaps but it shouldn't be all that surprising for several reasons.
First, the amount of information a person can carry on paper on a typical international flight is very small compared to what one can carry on a computer. The possibility that one might be carrying a large amount of sensitive information on paper isn't all that high. People simply won't gather up all the files in their office and carry them on a business trip.
Furthermore, since the amount of information is much more limited, there would be little need for customs to hold it for more than a couple of hours in order to go through it. As a result, people were very unlikely to have valuable papers and effects they needed for legitimate business held for months on end. It would be interesting to see the data on this but I suspect that until recently there weren't cases where customs held personal effects of any kind for more than 24 hours unless they were part of a specific criminal investigation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really hope that the Supreme Court decides to hear this case. There are just so many reasons that a decision made 120 years ago should be considered. Aside from the advances in technology, globalization has made international travel a much more common part of peoples lives.
120 years ago, international travel generally meant a long voyage by ship. It was something that few did at all and that only the wealthy might do more than once in a lifetime. Under those circumstances, border searches could be more easily viewed as an relatively minor invasion of personal privacy justifiable by the nations need for border security.
But today, international travel is no longer rare. For example, I've been through US customs 5 times in the past 12 months and while I'm sure that's well above average I'm also confident that it is not exceptional. I know many professors and business people who make international trips on a monthly basis. With international travel being that common, I find it unacceptable that people are expected to surrender their protection from unwarranted search and seizure every time they cross and international border.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also add that the rise in identity theft has made people much more concerned about protecting their personal information.
Fifteen years ago, very few people would have been concerned to have their birth certificates or bank statements stolen. Fifteen years ago, I didn't know anyone who owned a shredder for personal use. Twenty years ago, telling people your SS# wasn't considered anymore dangerous than telling them your name. The fact that this issue didn't come up until recently reflects, at least in part, peoples growing awareness about how their personal information can be used by others along with the rise in serious crimes committed using peoples personal data.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There would be a certain amusement value in having Homeland Security spend months to unlock encrypted files on my computer, only to find a bunch of student lab reports.
Yeah, there'd be laughter all over your cellblock in Gitmo. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, the startup company my husband worked for developed a product that does exactly what you're asking for: automatically backs up your computer online, then automatically backs up any additonal/new files on a regular schedule. They were recently bought out by HP, but the product is still available: upline.com
I use it (after a few complete hard drive crashes), and its very simple & requires no work from me. It also allows you to synch computers' data, which was a feature a few of my professors have found to be quite useful.
Oh, and my husband wants everyone to know that he designed everything, except for the new HP colors. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Shigosei, search is one thing, seizure is completely and utterly different. I don't care if they wanna peruse my laptop's contents at the airport or run some sort of search bot on it or something. But if they wanna take it away from me for months on end with out letting me access to the data they better damned well have probable cause.
Dag, I think that's also what makes this different from just rifling through the papers in someone's brief case.
Also, as to the greater outcry, you can store a heck of a lot more on a laptop than you ever could as documents in luggage. And a lot more of that stuff is considered more deeply private (your web history for example).
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other detail about seizing a laptop, apart from being without your data until they give it back, is that laptops are expensive. A large company probably isn't going to be hurt by one or two laptops being seized for a year, but an independant contractor or individual who has their $1000 laptop seized and doesn't know when they're going to get it back can be stuck in quite a financial tight spot. Do you buy a new one? Then what do you do when the old one comes back? If it's a work laptop, you probably can't go without it for 6 months. Rent?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This disturbs me, as someone who has to pass through US customs from without. I regularly travel with my laptop, a 120GB drive, various pendrives and an iPod. From the little I've read the powers of seizure extend to any portable mass-storage device, which would include any of these devices.
Does anyone have any informatino on the porcedures involved? How would your items be seized, what are the protocols for seizure? Is there some recourse or right of appeal?
I wonder where it will end. There will come a point where it is simply not worth going to the US for the hassles at the border.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What's interesting to me is that the constitutionality of routine searches of papers and effects of people entering or leaving the country has been well established for at least 120 years, yet it wasn't until laptops became an issue that there was a large outcry.
Because laptops constitute more than an omnibus of personal papers. They serve as appliances for personal use, and routinely carry far more personal information than one would normally carry, because separating that information is sometimes impractical.
Also, searches of effects and papers can be accomplished in minutes, which is not the case with laptops. How would the law look upon an unwarranted seizure of one's personal travel effects with no guarantee of an expeditious search? Imagine if they could just take your notebooks and your personal books away, your toiletries, and sift through those for months? If our law allows this already, then I find the law to be objectionable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Thank Jhai, I will definitely look into it.
Edit: But no Mac OSX option.. meh, never mind.
Question: why are online backup services SO EXPENSIVE? I mean, some websites have 300 GB of space for what amounts to 10 times the price of the same amount of storage space in a hard drive.
posted
Are you able to require a receipt and/or identification of the person (and their supervisor) doing the seizing?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Thank Jhai, I will definitely look into it.
Edit: But no Mac OSX option.. meh, never mind.
You took the words out of my mouth.
Unfortunately, even though my MacBook is dual bootable. The MacIntosh partition isn't accessible from Windows. So while I could run this program on my laptop, I still couldn't use it to back up the stuff I use most.
I guess I'll keep looking.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
After reading USA vs Arnold, it appears to me as if the search is always constitutional. But that case doesn't address seizure when no illegal activity is found by the search. Correct, or do you disagree?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
