I'm kind of appalled by this quote from a government official

[Danja]

I wish I could get enough vitriol up for the pit but it’s late. From here: Link

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, equates searches of electronic devices to those of papers in briefcases.

“You forgo your right to privacy when you are seeking admission into the country,” he says. “This is the kind of scrutiny the American public expects.”

Thank you very much, Mr. Knocke, for speaking on my behalf. I certainly expect security and customs officials to force suspicious looking persons (especially if they look Arabic) to reveal their passwords for electronic devices. In this proud and wonderful country, Big Brother watches from every circuit; one should therefore not expect a shred of privacy from this bastion of freedom.

Ahem. Ah, Mr. Knocke? Fuck you. (There’s the vitriol).

[Frank]

Moved from IMHO to the Pit.

[flickster]

I think you’re confusing the freedoms we experience while living in this country with the limited rights during a customs search at a point of entry.

I don’t think I have a problem with there being a difference.

[Zebra]

@article from OP

The suit accuses customs agents of “lengthy questioning and intrusive searches” and seeks clarification on the law that allows such searches.

The San Francisco, California-based foundation, which works to defend people’s rights in the digital world, says it knows of more than a dozen cases in which electronic devices such as cell phones, BlackBerries, MP3 players and laptops have been searched by customs agents. In some cases, they have been confiscated and never returned.

I think they should at least get their devices back.

[Ro_Carter]

This whole searching electronic devices thing is yet another example of a completely and totally moronic idea set up by people who have no fucking clue about anything technology related. I can see where you might think this might be a decent idea but they’ve implemented it without any kinds of controls that should be in place.

Another thing:in another article about this topic (on msnbc.com, I haven’t got time to dig it up right now) one of the people interviewed said one of the things the customs official asked her to do after logging on to her laptop was to show him how she opened Microsoft Word. This is one of the stupidest things I can imagine.

[Cheesesteak]

Do customs agents generally have the right to read papers you carry with you? If they do, then it’s only right that they also be allowed to read electronic files you carry with you. The only difference between the two is the media on which the information is stored. It doesn’t make sense to say that documents stored on paper media are fair game for Customs to read, but documents stored electronically aren’t.

Much of these complaints are that private or confidential information is in the computer, so it’s inappropriate for customs officials to search it. Nobody forced you to bring all those files with you, it was your choice. Next time, maybe choose to keep your personal and confidential files at home.

[Giles]

@Cheesesteak

Next time, maybe choose to keep your personal and confidential files at home.

Or download them, in encrypted form, via the Internet. Last time I looked, this was still legal.

[Gfactor]

@Cheesesteak

Do customs agents generally have the right to read papers you carry with you?

Here the seizure of respondent took place at the international border. Since the founding of our Republic, Congress has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 -617 (1977), citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29. This Court has long recognized Congress’ power to police entrants at the border. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 623 (1886). As we stated recently:

  "`Import restrictions and searches of persons or packages at the national border rest on different considerations and different rules of constitutional law from domestic regulations. The Constitution gives Congress broad comprehensive powers "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," Art. I, 8, cl. 3. Historically such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from [473 U.S. 531, 538]   entry.'" Ramsey, supra, at 618-619, quoting United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 125 (1973).

Consistently, therefore, with Congress’ power to protect the Nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, 1 and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause, Ramsey, supra. Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 562 -563 (1976), and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatever. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, supra.

---

Balanced against the sovereign’s interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of respondent. Having presented herself at the border for admission, and having subjected herself to the criminal enforcement powers of the Federal Government, 19 U.S.C. 482, respondent was entitled to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. But not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior, see e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , [473 U.S. 531, 540] 154 (1925); cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 515 (1983) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border. Supra, at 538.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=531

[Tuckerfan]

There’s software out there which allows you to create a “phantom partition” on your harddrive, if you don’t launch the appropriate program, there’s no way to tell that the drive’s been partitioned or what’s been hidden on that drive.

[mhendo]

@Giles

Or download them, in encrypted form, via the Internet. Last time I looked, this was still legal.

Which is, of course, why the whole process of searching people’s electronic devices, especially laptops, is so retarded. If i were a terrorist and had files containing information about my contacts or other aspects of my activities, you can be damn sure they wouldn’t be in My Documents, in folders entitled “People Who Sell Me Guns” and “Stuff I Blow Up.”

If they were on my computer at all, they’d be crammed into a password protected compressed file, and would be buried somewhere in the Windows or Program Files folder with a filename of something like oitlndfvoe34.rar. More likely, as you suggest, they’d be in encrypted form somewhere on the internet (an email account, a file storage service like Rapidshare, etc.), and not on the computer at all.

[mhendo]

@Tuckerfan

There’s software out there which allows you to create a “phantom partition” on your harddrive, if you don’t launch the appropriate program, there’s no way to tell that the drive’s been partitioned or what’s been hidden on that drive.

Right, and while i’m sure that the government has people who know how to get around such security devices, i’ll bet my bottom dollar that they’re not manning the TSA checkpoints at our international airports.

So what we probably end up with is enough intrusion to be offensive and invasive, but not enough to actually impede the real evil-doers. Another perfect example of busy-work, for-show security measures that have been such a hallmark of the post-9/11 world.

[flickster]

@mhendo

Right, and while i’m sure that the government has people who know how to get around such security devices, i’ll bet my bottom dollar that they’re not manning the TSA checkpoints at our international airports.

So what we probably end up with is enough intrusion to be offensive and invasive, but not enough to actually impede the real evil-doers. Another perfect example of busy-work, for-show security measures that have been such a hallmark of the post-9/11 world.

So what would you recommend, not searching at all, searching to the nth degree no matter how long it takes while you’re standing in line, or just restricting entry and not allowing any electronic devices to enter?

Me, I really don’t care if someone finds our search offensive or invasive.

[Giles]

@flickster

So what would you recommend, not searching at all, searching to the nth degree no matter how long it takes while you’re standing in line, or just restricting entry and not allowing any electronic devices to enter?

Me, I really don’t care if someone finds our search offensive or invasive.

I’d recommend doing some real intelligence, which won’t be so highly visible, but which will involve employing agents who speak and read languages like Farsi and Punjabi, who understand the culture of countries where Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have set themselves up, and who can work out what they are doing in places like Afghanistan.

[Projammer]

Keep it simple. Rename the contact file to bj547.jpg and dump it in a folder with about 10 gig of disgusting, but otherwise legal porn. Somewhere past the point where someone searching the directory would be suffering from bleeding eyeballs.

[E-Sabbath]

Does the Customs Agent have the right to seize your papers, for further perusal at a later date? (Laptops have been seized) To copy your papers for later investigation? Or just to examine them?

[OneCentStamp]

@Projammer

Keep it simple. Rename the contact file to bj547.jpg and dump it in a folder with about 10 gig of disgusting, but otherwise legal porn. Somewhere past the point where someone searching the directory would be suffering from bleeding eyeballs.

Agent goatse, meet Agent tubgirl. :eek:

[mhendo]

@flickster

So what would you recommend, not searching at all, searching to the nth degree no matter how long it takes while you’re standing in line, or just restricting entry and not allowing any electronic devices to enter?

What i would recommend, partly in line with Giles’ comments, is actually doing the legwork required in order to understand the issue, rather than conducting superficial yet invasive and insulting searches of anyone who happens to be of Middle Eastern or South Asian appearance and have a computer.

If you have reason to believe, based on smart intelligence work, that a specific person poses a threat, by all means go over their electronics with all the technology at your disposal. But don’t do this sort of superficial crap ad then pretend that it actually increases security in any meaningful way.

@flickster

Me, I really don’t care if someone finds our search offensive or invasive.

Actually, if the search was likely to yield decent results, i probably would have less concern about those issues too. But offensive, invasive, and useless strikes me as a pretty poor combination.

@Projammer

Keep it simple. Rename the contact file to bj547.jpg and dump it in a folder with about 10 gig of disgusting, but otherwise legal porn. Somewhere past the point where someone searching the directory would be suffering from bleeding eyeballs.

Hell, with the way that exif data works, you could embed your information in an actual pornographic picture jpg.

[Canadjun]

@Cheesesteak

Much of these complaints are that private or confidential information is in the computer, so it’s inappropriate for customs officials to search it. Nobody forced you to bring all those files with you, it was your choice. Next time, maybe choose to keep your personal and confidential files at home.

That might not be possible if you are travelling on business and those confidential files are relevant to your business trip.

[flickster]

@mhendo

If you have reason to believe, based on smart intelligence work, that a specific person poses a threat, by all means go over their electronics with all the technology at your disposal. But don’t do this sort of superficial crap ad then pretend that it actually increases security in any meaningful way.Actually, if the search was likely to yield decent results, i probably would have less concern about those issues too. But offensive, invasive, and useless strikes me as a pretty poor combination.

Just curious, how do our customs search procedures for electronic devices differ from other countries, say Israel for example?

[Lord_Ashtar]

@mhendo

Which is, of course, why the whole process of searching people’s electronic devices, especially laptops, is so retarded. If i were a terrorist and had files containing information about my contacts or other aspects of my activities, you can be damn sure they wouldn’t be in My Documents, in folders entitled “People Who Sell Me Guns” and “Stuff I Blow Up.”

Looks like you and Scott Adams have a similar line of thinking.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20080211.html