Printable View
Bill would require 'reasonable suspicion' before DHS electronics search
Any customs agent who wants to go poking around your laptop's hard drive is going to need a legitimate reason to do so, if legislation proposed Monday is adopted
The Raw Story | Bill would ban suspicionless laptop searches
Excellent. Even better is that DHS would not be able to hold the files / copies for longer than 24 hours without a warrant. A warrant itself requires "probable cause" (a higher standard than "reasonable suspicion") and the signature of a federal judge.
Up until now they have been able to search your laptop, make copies of all files,
and keep them for as long as they want, without any cause whatsoever. Aside from sharing this info with whomever they wanted, they would also create a file or report about you that you were never allowed to see.
Hopefully this will 'rationalize' the border security issue, and put 'customs' back in the box where they belong.
If for some reason I didn't want somebody to look at or copy what was on my computer then I'd use encrytion to ensure that they couldn't.
Any complaining otherwise is like complaining that your neighbours watch you having sex because you leave the curtains open and the light on and your bedroom window faces their loungeroom.
^Indeed - if they want to look at my notebook - go right ahead, nought on it at any rate.
Dare say DHS will do as they want at any rate - they can hold you for 48hrs for fun if they like. ;)
Can't the powers to be look straight through encryption ? I'm pretty sure the spooks have ghost keys.
Even if they didn't they could get a warrant to force you to give up the password.
DHS is a scary outfit. Traveling to the USA should be considered hazardous duty.:yerman:Quote:
Originally Posted by britmaveric
^^ actually, not true in both cases. They don't have a ghost key to most encryption progs and so far the case law supports a 5th amendment defense to password warrants.
^^^ has to do with US citizens at the border, only
^^^^ not really a close analogy. Though you are correct that some expectations of privacy are reasonable, while others are not. A closer analogy would be that unless you lock your doors and bolt your windows with a special type of lock, the government is free to come into your house at any time and film your activities - not just sex with your wife, but the books you read, the stocks you trade, every email or forum post, every photograph or journal musing, etc. They will then jot down their conclusions from a high school graduate / mall security guard perspective and put this in your secret file.
Some, including myself, believe that the 4th amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures properly applies to DHS searching the contents of your hard drive and making copies of it, as well as any personal papers you have with you, unless they can show cause that a law may have been violated.
As I mentioned, everything you have on your computer, as well as the border guard's / ICE agent's commentary, goes into a database which you are not allowed to see or contest. The security of that database is up to the usual lax US government standards.
Encryption: If they request a pass and you don't give it up, DHS practice has been to seize your laptop indefinitely and send you on your way. You won't be seeing it again this year or possibly even the next.
Saying you have 'nothing to hide' implies trust that some low-level government flunkie on a paid fishing expedition through your most personal effects will come to the same conclusion. Given history, that sort of trust is naive.
I agree, probable cause should be established. I have yet to look at the bill. The criteria related to what constitutes probable cause is the key issue. Typically, if probable cause is established, a court order is obtained to allow the search/seizure. This is obviously impractical at a border crossing. While the bill is encouraging, it still leaves the establishment of probable cause to the DHS which is essentially what it is now. Pending examination of the bill, can't see how this bill prevents the DHS from doing what they are presently doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbkk