U.S. Border Agents Allowed to Seize and Conduct Offsite Searches of Computers
U.S. Border Agents Allowed to Seize and Conduct Offsite Searches of Computers
Posted 04/08/2011 at 8:34am
| by Paul Lilly
67
Comments
Print
Fair warning for anyone who plans to travel outside the country. Upon re-entry into the U.S., border agents have full authority to seize your laptop, netbook, tablet PC, and other electronic components without a warrant, but that's not all. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that border agents also have the power to send your confiscated electronics to an offsite location for forensic inspection.
Network World says this is the second such ruling in less than a year empowering the U.S. government to conduct offsite searches of digital devices without a warrant. The first ruling came in a court in Michigan last May.
As you might imagine, none of this sits well with privacy advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) says that according to government documents, U.S. customs officials searched electronic devices belonging to some 6,600 travelers between October 2008 and June 2010, and confiscated more than 220 devices between October 2008 and June 2009.
Image Credit: worldculturepictorial.com
More like this
67
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
newegg911
April 13, 2011 at 6:35pm
I don't know. I just can't think of any scenario where someone would have information on a laptop that could pose a real threat to national security. I'm pretty sure anyone with that kind of knowledge would be smart enough to use the internet and take security measures to hide that kind of stuff.
2B0-2B
April 13, 2011 at 3:25pm
Look at it this way, If Border Agents (ie. Servants) want to mess with Americans (ie. the Masters who pay their salary) then there is nothing that says you can't mess with them back.
Take a computer that's on its last legs, wipe the hard drive, reinstall an operating system from a boot disk, make up some kind of Polish style name for the computer, imbed empty folders umpteen levels deep with a different encryption style on each folder or random folder, use the longest gobblty-gook password possible that even you can't remember it on each one. Hey, it was going in the dump anyway, what better way to cheaply dispose of it (ie. free). Or if you want to be creative, scatter a bunch of travel agency links from different countries in them.
Besides, what with the ability to teleconference using your PC, why waste time traveling overseas? If more people stopped traveling to other countries, their jobs would be in jeopardy.
garrettp
April 11, 2011 at 9:26am
IS MY PRON SAFE NOWHERE!!!!
I myself have nothing to hide. I am that person that will allow them to look through my sh!t knowing they are wasting their time and my tax dollars.
And of course, the people that they are looking for are probably just smart enough to get away scot free anyway. Maybe we should all travel with a peice of paper over the connectors on our hard drives ;)
American tax dollars hard at work.
ShyLinuxGuy
April 09, 2011 at 11:37am
I have only been out of the country 3x to Canada for a skiing vacay and didn't take any laptop, so I am not familiar with what they do. I am assuming they ask for your password. If not, what about people who use encrypted HDDs? What's the standard operating procedure if a device or laptop with a little-known OS comes in and is uncrackable?
It's a bunch of BS and makes no sense. What exactly are they looking for? Do they know it will take forever to search a laptop, and they won't always be successful. Let's see, we have 250GB *minimum* of storage and if someone's got something to hide, they'd be stupid to leave it without encryption.
They must really think that they're still in 1995, where a thorough search of the computer lasted ~5 minutes mucking around My Documents and getting around any barriers entailed clicking "Cancel" on the logon box to do so.
I'd like to know what if someone on a business trip came here, how well that would go over taking their laptop with their files and presentations. How many times has border employees taken trade secrets, pictures of someone's kids (because they have a sick mind), music and movies just because they're there?
hippynerd
April 09, 2011 at 2:48am
Send files and data there, then destroy hard drive. When get back home, buy a new one. Reinstall your stuff. Hard drive are cheap now. I use linux, thats free as well. So the fed will see hard drive less lap top, ha ha! http://www.dropbox.com Try it.
jonelsorel
April 09, 2011 at 12:04am
I guess this is all done to preserve freedom, right? :) Your system is rapidly moving towards a fully totalitarian one - not necessarily socialist, cause you're on way to the right in that regard. Gwen towers, cameras, unwaranted communications tapping on its citizens, way to go! Voting sure makes a difference, huh? Which is it next time, Rep or Dem? ;)
It's amazing how some of you instantly find workarounds whenever another one of your rights/liberties gets infringed upon - "fed-ex yourself your hard-drive" - to make you'll never use it again from "careful" handling by mail employees?
What's also amazing is how some countries in which access to information can still be considered free continue to fall down this slope of letting their govts rule them like serfs. Yours is the perfect example of how bad governing gets - hipocrisy, double standards, etc.
YOUR CONSTITUTION IS RIGHT THERE TO BE READ AND KNOWN
YOUR LAWMAKING PROCESS CAN STILL BE CONSIDERED TRANSPARENT, compared to other countries
Where's your mind?
darthtigger
April 08, 2011 at 8:18pm
simply remove your hard drive and fed ex it to yourself before you return from overseas.
drevas
April 08, 2011 at 4:37pm
Actually Carlidan, US involvement in Vietnam started under Truman. By the time the French were driven out we were providing 80% of the funding for French forces there.
There is a documentary series done by CBS, and while I'm no fan of Walter Cronkite, they correctly point this fact out. Oh, and what was Truman? Yeah, a Democrat.
So STFU if yolu can't get your facts straight.
As far as these searches and seizures at the border, the Supreme Court will have the last word. Anyone who thinks this is a liberal Court is delusional. The most controversial issues usually go 5-4 to the Right. The most recent 2nd Amendment cases demonstrate that.
I hope the Supremes see this as the over-reaching threat to personal privacy that it is.
Carlidan
April 08, 2011 at 5:10pm
Sorry I don't think I'm delusional, but I see you are. Yeah sure, to the right. Let's see how they voted on the issues. Like jmodly has pointed out, it is usually comes down to kennedy who leans more left. Just for your information. Now who's delusional?
Carlidan
April 08, 2011 at 4:59pm
So STFU if yolu can't get your facts straight.
Don't be so rude. :P
Stockislander
April 08, 2011 at 3:11pm
As if any agent or criminal with any sense would smuggle data of interest physically across a border. Just your garden variety pervs and clueless torrent feaks etc. would have anything illegal on their gadgets.
whathuhitwasntme
April 08, 2011 at 2:46pm
Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.big brother at workhttp://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeksread itunderstand its not made up
whathuhitwasntme
April 08, 2011 at 2:25pm
April 08, 2011 at 10:46am
Hmm. Might be time to activate whole drive encryption in TrueCrypt now. Not because I have anything to hide (that isn't already encrypted...), but just because it'll drive them nuts if/when I refuse to give them the pass phrase and access to my personal data.
Get your FREE copy at www.TrueCrypt.org today! (No, I'm not a shill, I just decided to act like one.)
this will not even bother them
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20017671-281.html
the feds put back doors into all encryption programs years ago
any of the PGP(pretty good protection) encryptions which are the majority of whats available, are easily defeated when they have the key to open them up. its hard coded into the source code on just about anything a civilian can purchase or own legally in America.
dont take my word for it, google federal government + encrcyption back door
be ready for the shock of your life
mseyf
April 08, 2011 at 2:37pm
"dont take my word for it, google federal government + encrcyption back door - be ready for the shock of your life"
If it's on the internets, it MUST be true...
Nimrod
April 08, 2011 at 4:12pm
That is an example of extreme stupidity at its utmost retardation. How fucking stupid do you have to be to use the fact that something is on the internet as an argument that its not true. dumbshit
CaptainFabulous
April 08, 2011 at 1:54pm
It really is getting harder and harder to rationalize why I continue to live in the US.
aarcane
April 08, 2011 at 12:45pm
how long until we have to show up at the airport completely naked with a glove already in our anus for the border agents to use ? will the next stop be to step into the cryo-freezing chamber to be turned into me-sicles prior to departure ?
aarcane
April 08, 2011 at 12:43pm
I can understand wanting to check all the accessible compartments on a laptop. my wife's former laptop had a small unused compartment perfectly sized and shaped to store enough PE to take down an aeroplane and still be functional. But the data stored on the drive is by it's very definition harmless to the aeroplane and all the people on board. seizure of a laptop is just completely unreasonable.
Ghok
April 08, 2011 at 2:35pm
Customs agents are a lot different from screening agents. Customs isn't interested in stopping prohibited items getting on airplanes, customs is interested in stopping prohibited items (and people) getting into the COUNTRY. You go through customs when you get into the US (with a few exceptions).
Customs has always been allowed to treat you pretty badly, and it's a good way for the authorities to check someone out without making an arrest... so this isn't surprising news.
Computers didn't exist when basic privacy laws were made, those laws are playing catch up. Like how it's easier for the authorites to read someone's email than it is to read their mail.
While I understand the desire to check out a suspicious person's computer when they enter the country, computers do often hold a very large amount of private data. Compromise here, please.
I Jedi
April 08, 2011 at 12:30pm
What some of you are failing to realize is that even though the 9th circuit court ruled that warrantless searches of laptops and other electronics was allowed at the border, the law itself may not hold. You see, in our republic, we have separate, higher and lower courts, with the Supreme Court being the highest. This is probably something that will reach the Supreme Court, but unfortunately it could not come at a worse time if it does. Right now, the Supreme Court is democratic, with Kennedy being the swing voter. Now, I have no problem with democrats, it's just that, like the Federalist, they believe in big government.
Big government means that the government should have a bigger say in how things are done and thus upsets the citizens and the states.Big government isn't always necessarily bad (regulations on capitalism, etc), just like isolationism isn't always bad either; however, the point I am trying to make is that during war, rights can be suspended for the good of the nation. You quote people from an entirely different generation, who had an entirely different perspective on America. No one two hundred years ago could have foreseen that Muslim extremist would blow themselves up in the name of their god. The government isn't actively seeking to destroy the rights of Americans, and to those who believe it to be so are naive. Rights have been limited before in the name of war, such as World War 2, but were ultimately always restored proceeding afterward.
Quote all you want, bitch all you want, but if you truly do believe in what you preach, rather than a five minute session of screaming about the issue, support these special interest groups, such as the ALCU. The best way for a democracy to die is for its citizens to not take part in the issues affecting their daily lives. Though, I don't personally have a problem with laptops being searched that are entering into the country, but the Internet makes the idea of sneaking data across the border kind of pointless.
Mighty BOB!
April 08, 2011 at 9:38pm
"Rights have been limited before in the name of war, such as World War 2, but were ultimately always restored proceeding afterward."
Except this time there isn't going to be an afterward. We are currently in a declared "war on Terrorism." That is not only an unwinnable war, just like the neverending "'war' on drugs," it's also a different animal from past wars between nation-states with established armies.
I Jedi
April 09, 2011 at 11:11am
I'd honestly like to hear your assestment on why the War on Terror is unwinnable? Oh, sure, this may not be a traditional war, that has army vs. army in some distant battlefield, but to say it is unwinnable because it is not a traditional war? You fail to understand the concept that while Muslims may be weary of American politics, the majority of them do not support their fellow Muslim extremist. Most of them want us to stay out of their affairs, sure, but even more do not support the actions of the few.
The best way to win this war is to get the general population over in the Middle East to favor the side of the United States. An enemy that is demoralized by its own people not supporting them morally will eventually become less of a threat overtime. This war is probably going to last well into my late 20s and early 30s, I would bet. I suspect, though, that once better education, government, and standards of living rise, we will see a decrease in terrorism. Most terrorist organizations recruit from poor villages to begin with.
Now, you may say that it is because of America's thirst for oil that we are in the Middle East to begin with. I would like to cite the following to prove anyone wrong if they try to use the oil fallback: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
We import more oil and petroleum from Canada and Mexico than we do from the first Middle East exporter to us: Saudi Arabia
Now, of course, you'll probably blast me with some statement calling me a fucking moron, and spitting out how if the U.S. just stayed out of the Middle East to begin with, none of this would be happening. Well, it has happened, rather we like it or not. We can either create another Vietnam situation, pull out, demoralizing our army, shitting on our dead, and having wasted billions on the War on Terror, or we can actively seek to help out countries. For example, helping out Afghanistan build up their economy, government, educational systems, etc, so that the possibility of a Afghanistan returning under Muslim extremist rule becomes less of a possibility again. Securing our nation by helping the world out the best we can.
Carlidan
April 09, 2011 at 1:39pm
Well your thinking to narrow. Your just thinking terriosm is just one faction. In your case Muslim extremist. But your not looking at the broader term of terrorism. Which any president can claim is war on terriosm. Right know some of our law makers now want to go to war on mexican drug cartels. Guess what they are calling those cartels. You guess it, terriost.
Terrorist:
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. 2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others. 3. (formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror. 4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.See how broad the term is. Shoot you can call gangs, poltical groups terriost. And don't think one day they will do it for the name of terriosm. I already gave you one example. That's why the war of terriosm is unwinnable because by defintion terriosm will always be there.
Biceps
April 09, 2011 at 11:11am
Dude, unless you are like 4 years old, this 'war on terror' is going to last well past your 30's. This war on terror was 'declared' in 2001. It is now a full decade later, with little progress. We are, however, helped by the fact that every time a terrorist blows themself up, there is one less of them. Think about that: there are so many of them that they can suicide, just to cause minor damage (from a strategic perspective) to us. That's a lot of people.
There are ALWAYS going to be sick, stupid and misguided people who are ready to blow themselves up. This 'war' isn't going anywhere.
I do agree that the best way to end terrorism is through friendship and understanding, I just don't see that happening, call me jaded.
I Jedi
April 09, 2011 at 3:07pm
I don't think that is a fair assestment to say that America hasn't made progress. While I don't know how long this war will last, it could be a 50 year war, I do know we have made progress. With more, democratic nations popping up in the Middle East, people are beginning to have access to better education, treatment, and understanding of their enviroment from multiple sources, not just one, controlled substance. The problem is that were toppling over governments that have been in place for more than 20 + years. There are even denominations inside the Islamic religion that create chaos and violence amongst themselves for their different interpretations of Islam, which makes the political process harder to move forward - See Iraq goverment
Again, by creating a more stable Middle East, we continue to make advancements towards stopping Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations by erroding them from within through helping the general population build and prosper. To say that we haven't had much success over in the Middle East is honestly just not a fair thing to say. It has been slow, no doubt, but I knew that when we went into this war, that it would be a slow, beating process. If we do not continue the committment we have taken, it opens a presidence by showing America can be beaten from within overtime. I know everyone is sick of this war, but I truly do believe it is an important war to the U.S.'s ability to stay a world power. Not through the control of oil, a region, but our will to stand together for a common belief against those who would seek to do us harm.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Divisions_of_Islam.png)
Mighty BOB!
April 08, 2011 at 10:00pm
Tried to make a ninja edit to that post but it was too late. Here's the expanded version. :P
"Rights have been limited before in the name of war, such as World War 2, but were ultimately always restored proceeding afterward."
Except this time there isn't going to be an afterward. We are currently in a declared "war on Terrorism." That is not only an unwinnable war, just like the neverending "'war' on drugs," it's also a different animal from past wars between nation-states with established armies. Terrorism is a concept. How do you have a war against a concept? These limitations and infringements on our rights are all in support of a 'moral imperative' that can't be won like a traditional war. It's much more gray and doesn't have a definitive end to which there can be an "after."
I think it is likely that maybe in 15 or 20 years things might get better, but with the state of affairs over the last 10 years I have serious doubts; political shills who have been bought out by the corporations bickering instead of advancing what is good for this country and the world as a whole while we fight in two wars, with a possible third looming...
Carlidan
April 08, 2011 at 4:34pm
"This is probably something that will reach the Supreme Court, but unfortunately it could not come at a worse time if it does. Right now, the Supreme Court is democratic, with Kennedy being the swing voter."
I have to call B.S. on this. Most of the time it's because of judges leaning "liberal" that most of our rights been held. For instance, abortions and gay mariages would have been over turn in an instance if was more conservatives judges.
But there is one thing I have to agree, there shouldn't be any fingering point though.
I Jedi
April 08, 2011 at 5:28pm
I think you misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps I am not understanding what it is that you are saying. Specfically, when you say this, "I have to call B.S. on this. Most of the time it's because of judges leaning "liberal" that most of our rights been held." in response to my earlier statement being, "This is probably something that will reach the Supreme Court, but unfortunately it could not come at a worse time if it does. Right now, the Supreme Court is democratic, with Kennedy being the swing voter."
I entirely agree with your statement in both this post and my last post. As I said previously, democrats, notoriously, support bigger government and government rights. That is why I stated that it is more than likely that if this law were to be challenged at the Supreme Court, that it might very well be kept as a law. Conservatives, or decentralist, would want this law out the door as quickly as possible.
Carlidan
April 08, 2011 at 5:41pm
What I'm saying it's because judges leaning more liberal is why our civil liberties have been held up. I can name more instances of my arguement if you like. I'm not saying conservatives are wrong period, they have vaild ideas on social issues, but most social issues they have been siding the wrong sides.
CaptainFabulous
April 08, 2011 at 1:50pm
Wow... just WOW. Sounds like a 5th grade social studies paper that would get a D-.
I Jedi
April 08, 2011 at 2:05pm
What specifically do you have a problem with? I'd like details and supporting argument about why you disaprove of my understanding of government before you simply say baseless attacks.
deadsenator
April 08, 2011 at 5:10pm
I'd have to agree with your assertion about CaptainFab's criticism. But I will say judges are not democrats or republicans, but liberal and conservative. And I think I might disagree with what I see as a conservative SCOTUS at the present. Furthermore, the InterTubes and MicroSD cards and other ways of moving data about obviates the need to look on laptops or other devices. Why should we be "okay with it"? The claim is to catch international traffickers of child pr0n or whatever, but I view it as a control issue. There is much to gain by keeping control of your population.
I will also give you kudos for telling people to be active in maintaining their democracy. It is truth.
Start at the local level and it will percolate up eventually.
I Jedi
April 08, 2011 at 5:33pm
I can concide the point that other, illegal data may try to cross the border instead of going over an open Internet. Of course, as the article said, only about 200 laptops were ever sent off to other facilities to investigate the content on them out of 6,000 other laptops and electronics. Of course, if someone really want to get child porn, secrets, or whatever across the border, why not just use a thumb drive, hide it somewhere on the car, out of sight, and be done with it? I think the whole point of searching laptops is to try to ward off people from trying to smuggle in illegal data in the first place, not find shit.
Biceps
April 08, 2011 at 1:04pm
One little point, my silly little republican. If democrats who believe in big government are the ones so interested in invading our private lives, then WHY did lil' Bush put through the PATRIOT ACT, and start the WARRENTLESS WIRETAPPING PROGRAM, and start the CONFISCATION OF ELECTRONICS AT THE BORDER (yeah, that started with Bush, buddy).
Maybe you need to stop taking so many bong hits so you get your short-term memory back, dude. That was all the right, not the left. WTF?
jgrimoldy
April 08, 2011 at 3:48pm
Funny, his argument didn't sound like it was particularly on the right. If anything, he sounds sort of centrist with left leanings. He did suggest getting involved withe the ACLU if you want to take a strong stand. This isn't really the kind of thing the right would typically suggest.
Myself, I agree that Bush did many things that will forever scar the nation, starting with the two you mention. The most frustrating thing is that he didn't even win in 2000. The Democrats just chose not to fight.
With the promises left unfulfilled by Obama (who I truly thought might just make a difference), I've finally reached the conclusion that it really doesn't matter who wins in 2012. The nation is FUCT regardless.
I Jedi
April 08, 2011 at 2:24pm
I'm not here to argue, I was trying to make a point that people should take more responsibility for overseeing their own government; however, if you want to play this game, I have no choice but to defend myself.
In 1941, F.D.R., a DEMOCRAT, got us into the biggest war that the United States of America has ever been involved in. In 1961, facing humiliation politically and fighting the Cold War, John F. Kennedy decided to get us started in Vietnam, a war that cost over 56,000 American lives by the time it was over. Next, President Obama, yours truly, has yet to repeal all of the Patriot Act provisions, specifically the wiretapping act of phones by court order, allow seizure of court ordered property and records, and finally continuance of surveillance against a "suspected", notice the word suspected, terrorist operative by monitoring. Next, why is President Obama fighting, notice I didn't say war, in Libya to help the rebels out in Libya? Why not help the other nations that have been revolting against their would-be-oppressive governments? I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but showing that equal sides are to blame for a number of issues. As you so point out, former President Bush managed to get the Patriot Act passed, but yet Obama still extends some of the provisions today.
I never once said I agreed with the Patriot Act, or even mentioned it beforehand. The problem, with people like you, is that you look to criticize the other side without seeing what your side has done in the process, too. I don't care to argue the finer points of political drama and bullshit because both parties are ate up, in my opinion. Again, that entire post I made above was to get people to think about why things happen and how they can be resolved, not to blame sides.
"One little point, my silly little republican."
That kind of bullshit is uncalled for and unnecessary. Politics may not be a favored subject to express amongst the many, but in this article, considering everyone's views on the issue, I felt it necessary to show cause and effect. If you have a problem with what I say, present it in a clean, decent manner. No "punching" at the other side is required.
Carlidan
April 08, 2011 at 4:15pm
Just for your information the Vietnam war was started in 1955. Hmmm... who was president at that time. I'm guessing hmmmmm... Eisenhower. Now if you have sayed that Kennedy continued the conflict, that would be correct. And for The cold war doctrine it was not FDR but Truman but he was still a democrat. If you want to agrue something at least get the facts. A simple google would have given it to you.
I Jedi
April 08, 2011 at 5:22pm
What are you talking about, sir? I said nothing about Truman starting the Cold War doctrine, I was associating Jon F. Kennedy with the Cold War and going into Vietnam. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#During_John_F._Kennedy.27s_administration.2C_1961.E2.80.931963
Now, if you want to argue something, at least get the facts straight.
Carlidan
April 08, 2011 at 10:01pm
My point is that democrat president and republican presidents between 1940's through 1980's have adpoted the Cold War doctrine. And we were in Vietnam way before JFK was even president.
Teeebs
April 08, 2011 at 11:55am
W...T...F...
Seems George Owell was merely off by a couple of years....sheesh.
deadsenator
April 08, 2011 at 5:00pm
It's actually a mix of Huxley and Orwell who were both influenced by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Go read "Brave New World".
Mighty BOB!
April 08, 2011 at 9:46pm
Yeah but they're all proving to me more accurate than should ever be the case. :(
AZTec2020
April 08, 2011 at 11:54am
@ MaxPC....You talk about "border agents" and show a pic of a TSA clown? WTF? I hope your info is more accurate than your photo. TSA has nothing to do with the border.
To the two Canucks above...thanks for staying home. Last thing we need here are more Canadians. Stay in your sociialist paradise.
Neufeldt2002
April 08, 2011 at 5:12pm
Judging by the fact that he joined just before posting his comment, I would say that he is trolling. :-/ If not, I agree, why the hatred?
As a reply to his post. The TSA are the first line of defense, aka border guards, when you fly into the US.
Please make publish to facebook opt-in, not opt-out.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 4 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 4 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E4 days 2 hours ago
