Court curbs laptop searches at U.S. border

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

A federal appeals court on Friday said Customs and Border Protection officers cannot confiscate or download every laptop or electronic device brought into the U.S., ruling that people have an expectation their data are private and that the government must have “reasonable suspicion” before it starts to do any intensive snooping.

In a broad ruling, the court also said merely putting password protection on information is not enough to trigger the government’s “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a more intrusive search — but can be taken into account along with other factors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges said it was a “watershed care” that gets at what kinds of limits the government must observe when it comes to technology and privacy.

“Electronic devices often retain sensitive and confidential information far beyond the perceived point of erasure, notably in the form of browsing histories and records of deleted files,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the majority opinion. “This quality makes it impractical, if not impossible, for individuals to make meaningful decisions regarding what digital content to expose to the scrutiny that accompanies international travel. A person’s digital life ought not be hijacked simply by crossing a border.”

The ruling says that Americans who carry laptops or other electronic devices when they go out in public have some expectation that that information is not open to a search if they made an effort to protect it.

Privacy advocates cheered the decision, saying that the government had previously believed it had the right to copy all electronic data of anyone crossing into the U.S.

“But in today’s watershed ruling, the court drew a line in the sand and recognized that the vast amount of personal information and sensitive data on laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices is worthy of Fourth Amendment protection,” said Michael Price, a lawyer for the Brennan Center for Justice.

The ruling, by the entire 9th Circuit, overturns a previous decision by a three-judge panel of the court.

In most cases, the government needs probable cause to conduct a search. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard. But the Obama administration had argued it didn’t need any reason to search.

The court rejected that, ruling that password-protected files are exactly what the Constitution’s framers had in mind when they wrote the Fourth Amendment protecting Americans’ “papers” from unreasonable searches.

In the case before the court, officers in Lukeville, Ariz., stopped Howard Cotterman as he came across the border and checked his name through records, discovering he had prior convictions for sex offenses, including child molestation. The officers found laptops and cameras in his vehicle and looked for child pornography, but were blocked by his password protection.

They let him go but kept his laptops and one camera, took them to a forensics office and copied all the information off the laptops. They eventually got into the password-protected files and found hundreds of images of child pornography, including Mr. Cotterman molesting a child.

Mr. Cotterman had put some of the files behind his password protection and had erased others, but the government analysts were able to reconstruct those files.

The court said that the government is allowed to perform an inspection at the border and to look at computers and cameras, but said to go deeper would raise major questions about government snooping.

“It is little comfort to assume that the government — for now — does not have the time or resources to seize and search the millions of devices that accompany the millions of travelers who cross our borders. It is the potential unfettered dragnet effect that is troublesome,” Judge McKeown wrote.

more at

[belinda63 2,981]

Woot and thank you Charles for posting this. Just as I would not expect a customs person to read every printed page I had in my carry-on/luggage I would also not expect them to make a copy of my hard drive. Glad this is being addressed as customs have almost made it a standard to demand passwords and browse persons computers when they cross. OMG, I have a book on how to make explosives on my NOOK, arrest me now.

[^_^ 5,021]

I have a book on how to make explosives on my NOOK

chemistry major or just like to troll the jihadi sites?

[TBoneTX 43,069]

What an amazing decision. The Fourth Amendment has been on life support for years, and a couple more Supreme Court decisions or even one could send it to its grave. Good that a lower court stood up for rights and common sense, although the "for now" in the last paragraph of the original post is a grim statement.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Liberals want to take away my gun rights in their dealing with the Second Amendment. As the kenyan says "for the sake of the children" This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged," Obama said. “We can’t put this off any longer."

"I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality," said the president, speaking about his full set of recommendations. "If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html

So if liberals want to gut the Second Amendment.....Why not also gut the Fourth Amendment...."for the sake of he children"..As the article mentioned they did catch a child molester once.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

•What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

•Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

"If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of “border protection,” we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities."

For the sake of the children why cannot we just gut the Fourth as the liberals desire to gut the Second. "we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited" Should we get to pick and choose which right we want to protect. I find it odd that a computer should be protected under the eyes of a liberal when an AR-15 should not be. After all neither were around when the bill of rights were written. Or is it now affecting a liberals right rather than just a conservatives right.

For the sake of the children

[BaBamSam 239]

Liberals want to take away my gun rights in their dealing with the Second Amendment. As the kenyan says "for the sake of the children" This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged," Obama said. “We can’t put this off any longer."

"I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality," said the president, speaking about his full set of recommendations. "If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html

So if liberals want to gut the Second Amendment.....Why not also gut the Fourth Amendment...."for the sake of he children"..As the article mentioned they did catch a child molester once.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

•What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

•Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

"If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of “border protection,” we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities."

For the sake of the children why cannot we just gut the Fourth as the liberals desire to gut the Second. "we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited" Should we get to pick and choose which right we want to protect. I find it odd that a computer should be protected under the eyes of a liberal when an AR-15 should not be. After all neither were around when the bill of rights were written. Or is it now affecting a liberals right rather than just a conservatives right.

For the sake of the children

It always comes back to guns, doesn't it?

Personally, I do not see the direct link that you are trying to make. Thankfully, we live in a world that is not "all or nothing" and people can have different views on different issues. The fallacy of your argument, to me, lies in your belief that a computer and a gun are what are being protected - but they aren't. People are the "thing" that both of these decisions are trying to protect. You may disagree with this law, you may disagree with an anti-gun viewpoint, but remember that these arguments revolve around the best way to protect people - not objects.

[lostinblue 1,989]

It always comes back to guns, doesn't it?

Personally, I do not see the direct link that you are trying to make. Thankfully, we live in a world that is not "all or nothing" and people can have different views on different issues. The fallacy of your argument, to me, lies in your belief that a computer and a gun are what are being protected - but they aren't. People are the "thing" that both of these decisions are trying to protect. You may disagree with this law, you may disagree with an anti-gun viewpoint, but remember that these arguments revolve around the best way to protect people - not objects.

I thought you cared about the kids.You desire to castrate the 2nd but complain when the government wants to castrate the 4th.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

You desire to be selective as to which Amendment YOU desire to support.

In your eyes every 30 round mag is a future sandy hook waiting to happen.....Why not just use the same liberal logic and search every computer within 100 miles of the border because somewhere could be child porn on one.(as mentioned in the above article)

Think of the kids..... I do understand You have a computer but not a gun .....Hypocritical selective Outrage of the left.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

please discuss the topic, not tangents. thanks.

[BaBamSam 239]

I thought you cared about the kids.You desire to castrate the 2nd but complain when the government wants to castrate the 4th.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

You desire to be selective as to which Amendment YOU desire to support.

In your eyes every 30 round mag is a future sandy hook waiting to happen.....Why not just use the same liberal logic and search every computer within 100 miles of the border because somewhere could be child porn on one.(as mentioned in the above article)

Think of the kids..... I do understand You have a computer but not a gun .....Hypocritical selective Outrage of the left.

You are implying things about my beliefs that I have never mentioned. These implications would support whatever it is that you are trying to say had they a) been true and b) been in response to the same discussion. They are, technically, neither.

EDIT: To remove tangent discussion as per above request.

Searching people's computers without probable/legal cause is an invasion of privacy that I don't agree with. On a personal level, I would not be worried about my computer being searched (I'm sure I would just confuse and/or humor searchers with my saved gifs and search history). But for other people, this is a trust issue. They may be doing "indecent things" that are otherwise legal and do not want to risk that being exposed. They may be doing perfectly legal and "decent" things, but prefer that they do not have their privacy invaded by the government.

Edited March 10, 2013 by BaBamSam

[Darnell 8,478]

if a convicted child molester crosses the border into the USA, then I really do want his gear searched.

<EOM>

[Lemonslice 4,557]

EFF's Guide to Protecting Electronic Devices and Data at the U.S. Border (more details on their site)

There Are Several (Imperfect) Ways That You Can Make Your Data Less Vulnerable at the Border.

What can you do to keep the government from arbitrarily rummaging through your sensitive or confidential information during your international travels? There are several ways that you can protect your data at the border, though none is 100% gauranteed to keep the government's hands off your devices or your travels stress-free. Different approaches might be better for different travelers, devices, and data, but all of these precautions will help to keep your information significantly more secure during border crossings:

• 
  
• Carry as little data as possible over the border.
  
• Keep a backup of your data elsewhere.
  
• Encrypt the data on your device.
  
• Store the information you need somewhere else, then download it when you reach your destination.
  
• Protect the data on your devices with passwords.
  

Bold + remote access with a VPN has been working fine for me. I've never been worried about my personal documents/history; but I certainly do not want to share confidential stuff my clients gave me.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Boston~Montreal

[james&olya 1,121]

if a convicted child molester crosses the border into the USA, then I really do want his gear searched.

<EOM>

That might be reasonable. If determined to be reasonable it could be made a parole condition and therefore not prohibited by the 4th amendment. I think it would be a great idea to do exactly that. Problem solved?

[Darnell 8,478]

yup, problem solved. CBP already sees if passport holder is a convicted felon when the passport is scanned at the border.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Darnell

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A federal appeals court on Friday said Customs and Border Protection officers cannot confiscate or download every laptop or electronic device brought into the U.S., ruling that people have an expectation their data are private and that the government must have “reasonable suspicion” before it starts to do any intensive snooping.

In a broad ruling, the court also said merely putting password protection on information is not enough to trigger the government’s “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a more intrusive search — but can be taken into account along with other factors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges said

The most overturned appeals court made this ruling? Big surprise.

[duraaraa 203]

I really do hope that the government stops disrespecting people's rights to privacy. I understand that there are horrible people out there who the government would like to catch, but I don't think it is worth sacrificing public privacy to find them.

This is a very good decision, and I hope that other things take this direction as well. I think people had their privacy respected much more in the pre-9/11 days, but recently terrorism, save the children, and 'if you don't have anything to hide, why don't you want us to search you'-type of reasoning has lead a lot of movement in the wrong direction.

The last time I came back to the country, my flight from Asia to the U.S. was delayed, and I needed to transfer at San Francisco. When I got to customs, I got through, and has just enough time to barely make my flight. When I asked one of the customs attendants where I should go, and made it obvious that I had a flight to catch, even showing my boarding pass, they said "Whoa, why are you making up stories?" and had me get in line to have my bags searched. Of course, I missed my connection.

I couldn't understand why something as common as being in a hurry to make my connection would be viewed as suspicious.

I should mention, I have been to many countries, even communist countries, and always had my privacy respected, and no issues whatsoever in all of the international airports I have used... with the exception of those in the U.S.

Edited April 22, 2013 by duraaraa