All your laptop are belong to us

[Siji]

Link

Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches
U.S. Agents Seize Travelers' Devices

Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased.

A few months earlier in the same airport, a tech engineer returning from a business trip to London objected when a federal agent asked him to type his password into his laptop computer. "This laptop doesn't belong to me," he remembers protesting. "It belongs to my company." Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself.

Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had "a security concern" with her. "I was basically given the option of handing over my laptop or not getting on that flight," she said.

The seizure of electronics at U.S. borders has prompted protests from travelers who say they now weigh the risk of traveling with sensitive or personal information on their laptops, cameras or cellphones. In some cases, companies have altered their policies to require employees to safeguard corporate secrets by clearing laptop hard drives before international travel.

Today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Asian Law Caucus, two civil liberties groups in San Francisco, plan to file a lawsuit to force the government to disclose its policies on border searches, including which rules govern the seizing and copying of the contents of electronic devices. They also want to know the boundaries for asking travelers about their political views, religious practices and other activities potentially protected by the First Amendment. The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts.

The lawsuit was inspired by two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics. Almost all involved travelers of Muslim, Middle Eastern or South Asian background, many of whom, including Mango and the tech engineer, said they are concerned they were singled out because of racial or religious profiling.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman, Lynn Hollinger, said officers do not engage in racial profiling "in any way, shape or form." She said that "it is not CBP's intent to subject travelers to unwarranted scrutiny" and that a laptop may be seized if it contains information possibly tied to terrorism, narcotics smuggling, child pornography or other criminal activity.

The reason for a search is not always made clear. The Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which represents 2,500 business executives in the United States and abroad, said it has tracked complaints from several members, including Udy, whose laptops have been seized and their contents copied before usually being returned days later, said Susan Gurley, executive director of ACTE. Gurley said none of the travelers who have complained to the ACTE raised concerns about racial or ethnic profiling. Gurley said none of the travelers were charged with a crime.

"I was assured that my laptop would be given back to me in 10 or 15 days," said Udy, who continues to fly into and out of the United States. She said the federal agent copied her log-on and password, and asked her to show him a recent document and how she gains access to Microsoft Word. She was asked to pull up her e-mail but could not because of lack of Internet access. With ACTE's help, she pressed for relief. More than a year later, Udy has received neither her laptop nor an explanation.

ACTE last year filed a Freedom of Information Act request to press the government for information on what happens to data seized from laptops and other electronic devices. "Is it destroyed right then and there if the person is in fact just a regular business traveler?" Gurley asked. "People are quite concerned. They don't want proprietary business information floating, not knowing where it has landed or where it is going. It increases the anxiety level."

Udy has changed all her work passwords and no longer banks online. Her company, Radius, has tightened its data policies so that traveling employees must access company information remotely via an encrypted channel, and their laptops must contain no company information.

At least two major global corporations, one American and one Dutch, have told their executives not to carry confidential business material on laptops on overseas trips, Gurley said. In Canada, one law firm has instructed its lawyers to travel to the United States with "blank laptops" whose hard drives contain no data. "We just access our information through the Internet," said Lou Brzezinski, a partner at Blaney McMurtry, a major Toronto law firm. That approach also holds risks, but "those are hacking risks as opposed to search risks," he said.

This is absolutely fucking insane.

[Winnow]

Link

At least two major global corporations, one American and one Dutch, have told their executives not to carry confidential business material on laptops on overseas trips, Gurley said. In Canada, one law firm has instructed its lawyers to travel to the United States with "blank laptops" whose hard drives contain no data. "We just access our information through the Internet," said Lou Brzezinski, a partner at Blaney McMurtry, a major Toronto law firm. That approach also holds risks, but "those are hacking risks as opposed to search risks," he said.

Smart move. I don't have anything on my Laptop besides a few basic apps. I remote connect to my main PC while at home and do the same while traveling. Who knows what kind of shit will happen in airports with security or elsewhere.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Not seeing an issue here. I applaud them for being overly cautious.

[Fash]

This is totally unacceptable behavior. It is nothing like checking your suitcase, unless when checking your suitcase they also take the time to photocopy all documents and photograph everything. They don't. They are not trustworthy enough to be handling that personal and corporate data, which I would expect to come up 'missing' at some point in the future.

This is intrusive in the worst way and I am confident it will be stopped by the courts.

[Animale]

Not seeing an issue here. I applaud them for being overly cautious.

Say that when they take your laptop away at the airport for a year+. You have "nothing to hide" so wouldn't have a problem if it was done to you, right?

If it can wrongly happen to one, it can wrongly happen to all. This is the ULTIMATE in the nanny state, except in this case it's only a nanny who wants to give you a spanking instead of giving a hand up.

Animale

[Noysyrump]

I could possibly see doing this to someone who was not a citizen. But if you are a citizen of the US then this SHOULD be considered illegal search and siezure. Too damn Orwellian. Whats to not stop them from installing keymappers or other trojan "bugs" onto the system that could allow access at any time even after they return your property. Perhaps its time my brothers to stand up and revolt against this unjust government! Now wheres my nine millimeter?~

[Boogahz]

I could possibly see doing this to someone who was not a citizen. But if you are a citizen of the US then this SHOULD be considered illegal search and siezure. Too damn Orwellian. Whats to not stop them from installing keymappers or other trojan "bugs" onto the system that could allow access at any time even after they return your property. Perhaps its time my brothers to stand up and revolt against this unjust government! Now wheres my nine millimeter?~

They don't GIVE the laptop back, so the keyloggers would be a little counter-productive!

[Siji]

Not seeing an issue here. I applaud them for being overly cautious.

Say that when they take your laptop away at the airport for a year+. You have "nothing to hide" so wouldn't have a problem if it was done to you, right?

If it can wrongly happen to one, it can wrongly happen to all. This is the ULTIMATE in the nanny state, except in this case it's only a nanny who wants to give you a spanking instead of giving a hand up.

Animale

This is the main fucking reason I have Midnyte on ignore. Only someone as fucking ignorant as he is could possibly say shit like this is ok. Seriously you dumb fuck, move somewhere else. It's people like you that are ruining the fucking country.

[Zaelath]

It's all a matter of perspective; I see why you think this is wrong, I also see why Midnyte doesn't:

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yeah I'm a horrible person. I'm not over reacting like you guys and taking a few exmaples and making it seem like it is standard protocol. I'm so ashamed. *yawn*

[Spang]

Yeah I'm a horrible person.

Correct.

[Bagar-]

Why people still engage him is beyond me...

As far as the laptops, it's bullshit; but like everything else, there's not much to be done now is there?

[Animale]

Yeah I'm a horrible person. I'm not over reacting like you guys and taking a few exmaples and making it seem like it is standard protocol. I'm so ashamed. *yawn*

Stuff like this doesn't go down without a system-wide policy of doing such actions. For search and seizure like this there HAS to be written policy - agents aren't willing to lose their jobs by going rogue on something like this... in fact, that's why the TSA was created in the first place.

When overseas companies start telling their employees to carry "blank" laptops, then its obviously a fairly large issue. That can only hurt U.S. business interests both here and abroad. Look at the big picture here, Mid.

Animale

p.s. Do you travel for business? If so, how can you think this is a good thing?

[Aabidano]

p.s. Do you travel for business? If so, how can you think this is a good thing?

There's no way I'd travel internationally with business data that was in any way sensitive on my laptop. That's a common sense measure that should have been in practice long before this started. Asking for usernames\passwords seems excessive, in my case it'd only help them for the next 60 seconds, so really wouldn't matter. Realistically you shouldn't store anything that matters locally, cached copies should get nuked regularly.

Given the US govt's record on data security I have absolutely no faith that they can guarantee the safety\privacy of my business data.

*Edit - In individual cases I could see this being justifiable. Realistically there's absolutely no way they're ever going to see anything I don't want them to in any case.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

p.s. Do you travel for business? If so, how can you think this is a good thing?

Of course. I've flown many times within the US with my work laptop. Never once have I had any seizure or seen any seizure. My parents travel 4 times a month with their laptops and never happened to them. It seems to be just international flights and also from this story above, it has only happened a few times. How many flights a day? How many passengers a day? A year? Knock it off already.

[eOmniz]

So because it doesn't happen often that would make it more ok?

In what situation would it be necessary for an airport security officer to know what websites you have visited?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So because it doesn't happen often that would make it more ok?

In what situation would it be necessary for an airport security officer to know what websites you have visited?

If I'm suspicious in some way to the security in charge in some country/airport? Everyt time, I guess.

[Fash]

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.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

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.

UNREASONABLE. Right. Thanks for the backup.

[Aabidano]

In what situation would it be necessary for an airport security officer to know what websites you have visited?

Too see if it's a laptop that's actually been in use rather than a dummy device being carried for some other purpose?

[Hesten]

Lol, i read the first post, and was actually about to make a joke post about how Midnytes reaction would probably be "if you don't have anything to hide, this is nothing to worry about", and then 2 post later, i read his post

Apart from the 4th amendment issue, the fact that federal agents are allowed to pick out random people and not just frisk them, and search their luggage, but confiscate their computers, require passwords from them, is just batshit insane.

Apart from the MANY privacy issues for individuals, way too many for my taste, look at the MANY recent "whoops, we lost half a million SS number or company secrets". How the FUCK can the US goverment (or any other goverment that might try to pull this stunt off) even CONSIDER confiscating laptops and passwords, creating HUGE security violations to corporations.
This take what, one bribed fedreal agent, to pull corporate spying/stealing to a whole new level.
Just need the airplane number and a picture of someone from a rival company, can be planned long in advance if there are meetings, convention and the like, get a bribed federal agent (or even worse, a fake federal agent, do anyone do a major security check before any "federal agent" would be allowed to take a laptop + passwords) to visit and check that day, get laptop from rival company CEO and copy company data, or get passwords, and bingo, XXX million $ worth of crucial data are in the hands of rival company XXX.
This would force companies (or do already, as you see from the article) to make SURE no data are on laptops, only use tokens....oh wait, tokens/cellphones for SMS passcodes can be confiscated too...i guess only use tokens ALREADY in the country, to be handed out at the destination, and a major overhaul of passworrd policies.

And Midnyte, the fact that you can even SAY that the fact that you and your family managed to fly a lot of times without this happening just show that you have NO regard for your own constitution, which you seem to hold so dear on other points.
If the next idea is for a federal agent to be allowed to execute anyone he suspects of terrorism on looks alone, will that be ok if its only from international flights, or ok if it didnt happen to you or you family?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

[Aslanna]

So because it doesn't happen often that would make it more ok?

Pretty much. He assumes since he's an average white male he has nothing to worry about. Let the brown people get hassled what does he care? Fuck Muslims!

[Aabidano]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

This is security for show, makes people feel better and that's about it.

Rare events are rare primarily because they don't occur very often, and not because of any preventive security measures (Bruce Schneier).

[Animale]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

Well, when I'm wiping my ass with the Constitution while the black helicopters flying overhead keep me safe I'll feel a lot better.

You halfwit,

Animale

[Siji]

...without bothering to respond to the village idiot...

Identity theft is a growing (some would say it's already a huge) problem. That's just one angle of this issue that troubles me.

The lack of a specifically defined procedure for this sort of inspection points to the fact that this is not an 'across the board policy'. If you don't think that random TSA officials do things out of their normal scope of things, simply look at the recent issues where random airports were requiring the removal of ALL electronic devices from checked luggage (including phones, cords, etc). It isn't TSA's policy to do this. If you check their new blog (TSA has a public blog now) you'll see a public apology for this which includes them saying that this activity has been stopped. You can also easily google for lots of TSA 'encounters' where employees on an ego trip are complete asshats and make random demands of people. (Remember the mother who was told she couldn't take her baby's water bottle on the plane, nor was she allowed to simply drink it in line (so she could get through and catch her plane) - but instead had to leave, empty the bottle, and then start at the back of the line?)

This is unimaginably invasive to an individual's privacy. This is like asking someone to open up their wallet, allow their credit cards, checkbook ledger/history, drivers license and social security card to be copied. Call me ignorant, but I can't think of any situation where law officials have the right to do this sort of thing on a random basis. You don't give up your rights just because you're taking a plane ride. It's public transportation and you've paid for it. You agree to follow rules of conduct and rules of what you bring onto the vessel, but you do not agree to unreasonable search and seizure. You don't stop being (assuming you are one to start with) an American citizen just because you've boarded a plane.

[Sueven]

UNREASONABLE. Right. Thanks for the backup.

Long-running Supreme Court precedent, acquiesced to by the executive and legislature under the control of both parties, holds that a search or seizure is per se unreasonable without a warrant. All warrantless searches are unreasonable unless they fall into one of a few narrowly defined categories.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

UNREASONABLE. Right. Thanks for the backup.

Long-running Supreme Court precedent, acquiesced to by the executive and legislature under the control of both parties, holds that a search or seizure is per se unreasonable without a warrant. All warrantless searches are unreasonable unless they fall into one of a few narrowly defined categories.

Have you ever been to an airport? LOL. You sound like such an idiot sometimes.

[Sueven]

The typical security procedures are either not considered 'searches' or 'seizures,' or they are justified under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. You can look up the details if you want.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Exactly. So don't bring it up, dummy.

[Sueven]

This is not a typical procedure, thus it requires justification under the same framework.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This is not a typical procedure, thus it requires justification under the same framework.

Maybe it should be then.

[Animale]

Well I'm sure the supreme court will be glad to receive your friend of the court brief on this subject when it gets to them. Until it is specifically included under said guidelines by the judiciary then you need to have a big ol' cup of STFU.

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It's okay. We've seen this cycle before. You will fight for less and less control by the people who are trying to protect you.....right up until the next error attack. Then you will vilify all agencies for failing to thwart it. Such a sick little cycle for you folks of little memory. You just go charging ahead all the time after you "just" causes. Sad.

[Animale]

It's okay. We've seen this cycle before. You will fight for less and less control by the people who are trying to protect you.....right up until the next error attack. Then you will vilify all agencies for failing to thwart it. Such a sick little cycle for you folks of little memory. You just go charging ahead all the time after you "just" causes. Sad.

Want to let this pass because I know it's a troll, but the level of ignorance on my views is just staggering.

1) I believe the price of of our freedoms is increased vulnerability to attacks that utilize such freedoms. While measures can and should be taken to prevent attacks, we also need to realize that our values rely upon opening ourselves to the world. If we create "Fortress America" then we've already lost. The pithy "Ben Franklin" quote can be applied here as well.

2) I only vilify agencies and administrations for incompetence and ignorance. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, and it (or an attack like it) cannot be eternally avoided. That being said, many of the measures to increase cross-talk between the security agencies within the U.S. area a good thing, as the left hand often does need to know what the right is doing to be effective. That being said, many of the measures taken after 9/11 are, in my mind, criminal and un-Constitutional.

3) Although you like to say that others fail to "see the big picture" I have demonstrated how I actually am seeing a larger picture than you in most of our direct arguments. On the Iraq war, I claimed that the risks and costs of failure were too great for the negligible benefits which you have claimed - I believe that the costs in both blood and treasure are already too high, and that the benefits gained are quite below that promised by the likes of you "big picture" folks. It has been, to put it kindly, a FAIL. In the area of Global Warming you continue to fail and expand your knowledge of the state of the art in the scientific findings, falling back on points which have negligible data to back them up. You are not seeing the big picture (or failing to see it because you feel it will hurt your pocketbook, another issue entirely) on this issue because you fail to even look at the evidence that I am willing to walk you through.

In this discussion, it has been pointed out that you are incorrect in your definition of unreasonable by somebody who actually knows the field. But, instead of saying - "oops, my bad. Maybe it should work its way through the courts then" you have the audacity to claim that your opinion matters more than the legal systems. Fun times.

Anyway, wall of text is done. As I've said before - bite me and fuck off you ignorant slut.

Animale

p.s. Taking bets on how many sentences Mid will respond to this. o/u is 3.

[Sueven]

1, if that

[Zaelath]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

Elephant repellant! Get your elephant repellant! Right here! Just give up all your personal privacy and freedom and never be bothered by elephants again!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

Elephant repellant! Get your elephant repellant! Right here! Just give up all your personal privacy and freedom and never be bothered by elephants again!

We are not in a war against elephants.

[Truant]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

Elephant repellant! Get your elephant repellant! Right here! Just give up all your personal privacy and freedom and never be bothered by elephants again!

We are not in a war against elephants.

Technically, we are not at war with anyone/thing.

[Siji]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

Elephant repellant! Get your elephant repellant! Right here! Just give up all your personal privacy and freedom and never be bothered by elephants again!

We are not in a war against elephants.

Technically, we are not at war with anyone/thing.

Except stupidity.

[Hesten]

When it thwarts an attack that never happens and you don't lose your loved ones....you'll be grateful. Thing is you'll never know it happened. But, you'll be unknowingly grateful none the less.

Elephant repellant! Get your elephant repellant! Right here! Just give up all your personal privacy and freedom and never be bothered by elephants again!

We are not in a war against elephants.

Technically, we are not at war with anyone/thing.

Except stupidity.

And looking at how Midnytes mind works, I'll dare say we lost