The Hard Numbers Behind Laptop Searches at the Border

[TotallyOz]

Back in July 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a new policy (PDF) regarding searches of documents and electronic devices at the border. CBP asserts it has the right to conduct these searches of any traveler — citizens and noncitizen alike "absent individualized suspicion," — meaning no suspicion of wrongdoing is even required to conduct a search. Despite an update to the policy in August 2009 (PDF), everything from the photos of your kids on your camera phone to your company's trade secrets on your laptop, is fair game.

The ACLU feels that this policy violates travelers' First and Fourth Amendment rights. So we filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records concerning the criteria for carrying out the searches, how many travelers had been subjected to the searches, the number of devices retained and the reasons for their retention.

Today we released the first batch of information we got back from the CBP. After reviewing 863 pages of documents, here's what we know:

* In a span of just nine months, CBP officials searched over 1,500 electronic devices belonging to travelers.

* Cell phones were the most commonly searched and seized devices between October 2008 and June 2009.

* Other types of devices that were searched and detained include digital cameras, thumb drives, hard drives, and DVDs.

* Between July 2008 and June 2009, CBP transferred electronic files found on travelers' devices to third-party agencies (often to translate or decrypt what's on the device) almost 300 times. Over half the time, these unknown agencies asserted the right to retain or seize the transferred files. More than 80 percent of the transfers involved the CBP making copies of travelers' files.

If you'd like to totally geek out on the data, check out these spreadsheets!

Again, because no suspicion is required to do a search, it's not clear what CBP is looking for. As my former colleague Noam blogged in 2008:

s the solution to search every laptop and cell phone, hoping to uncover an Outlook calendar entry that says "8 a.m.: Coffee and Bagel; 9 a.m.: Blow up Sears Tower?" An all-invasive approach that treats everyone like a suspect is not a smart trade-off for the miniscule chance that we'll catch a break like that.

For those of you who travel across the border frequently, we have a few suggestions for how to keep those trade secrets (and pictures of your kids) private.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/hard-numbers-behind-laptop-searches-border

[markgordon]

The same insidious policy is being implemented by the Canadian Border Services Agency. An escort friend of mine, travelling to Toronto from the US, had the contents of his laptop and digital camera searched in December.

I now have a netbook that I use just for travelling. It contains no files and I clear the history and temporary internet files before flying.

[TampaYankee]

The same insidious policy is being implemented by the Canadian Border Services Agency. An escort friend of mine, travelling to Toronto from the US, had the contents of his laptop and digital camera searched in December.

I now have a netbook that I use just for travelling. It contains no files and I clear the history and temporary internet files before flying.

Thanks for that info. I have crossed the US/Canada border numerous times in the past with never a worry about computer/camera searches. THat was a few years ago. I wondered what the current climate was like.

[Guest Conway]

The same insidious policy is being implemented by the Canadian Border Services Agency. An escort friend of mine, travelling to Toronto from the US, had the contents of his laptop and digital camera searched in December.

I now have a netbook that I use just for travelling. It contains no files and I clear the history and temporary internet files before flying.

I have begun doing the same thing in the last year. I have an inexpensive travel laptop that I carry on international trips.

[TampaYankee]

I have begun doing the same thing in the last year. I have an inexpensive travel laptop that I carry on international trips.

Only way to go. Only problem is that is my only computer. I would have to double down on my computing resources.

[Lucky]

How do the Republicans here defend this policy? It was started under Bush, apparently legal by the "Patriot" Act.

Elsewhere it is said that Oz had his laptop seized and spyware put on it by the government. is this true?

[BiBottomBoy]

If they are primarily hitting cell phones, cameras and DVDs then they are looking for kiddie porn and not terrorism stuff or video piracy.

[RA1]

I don't know about Republicans but as an independent I am against the Terrorist Act. This being just one "stupid" example.

Best regards,

RA1

[TotallyOz]

There is very little that I would ever put past the TSA or Customs. I have given my opinion of them and they do seize laptops with no warning and no information given. When you enter the USA, you loose all rights as an American citizen. It is no wonder that people from other countries hate traveling to USA.

[TampaYankee]

I do not know how this can be rationalized as anything but unconsitutional under the Fourth Ammendment. Congressional statues cannot trump the Constitutiona. Nevertheless, the courts seems to be upholding Customs' actions.

Just another example of strict constructionists falling back on the strict construction depending on how they see it.

[MsGuy]

The Supremes are skiddish about going full bore on constitutional protections when the King's borders (or ability to collect taxes or use the Army) is at stake. Always have been, probably always will be. All in all, they usually do the best they think they safely can.

Or, as the Old Darlings themselves once put it, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

[Lucky]

The Supremes are skiddish about going full bore on constitutional protections when the King's borders (or ability to collect taxes or use the Army) is at stake. Always have been, probably always will be. All in all, they usually do the best they think they safely can.

Or, as the Old Darlings themselves once put it, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

That may have been true at one time in traditional war, but the attitude now among the Roberts Courts is full speed ahead on destroying personal freedom.

[TampaYankee]

That may have been true at one time in traditional war, but the attitude now among the Roberts Courts is full speed ahead on destroying personal freedom.

Pretty much.

[RA1]

I would hate for the current Supremes to be "after" our personal freedoms. I am not a fan of either of the popular political parties now but I have to hope that we are going to "correct" evasions from what is "correct" and soon.

Best regards,

RA1

[BiBottomBoy]

This court would have rejected Brown Vs. Board Of Education.

[RA1]

Brown v. BOE might be politically correct but it has led to a plethora of no doubt unintended consequences. It might have even been the best for the country but, I am sorry to say, the jury is still out on the ultimate result of that ruling.

It would indeed be wonderful if a SC ruling or pol edict could suddenly or otherwise lead to equality and justice for all. (Where is Superman when you need him?) However, laws do not make people mentally, physically, spiritually or economically equal and never will. That is not a negative comment on black folks, poor folks or any other kinds of folks, just a comment on how things "are".

However, all we can do is keep trying to make things as good as possible, correct? After all, fairness is not a political doctrine but merely the attitude and actions of each of us individually to each other.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Brown v. BOE might be politically correct but it has led to a plethora of no doubt unintended consequences. It might have even been the best for the country but, I am sorry to say, the jury is still out on the ultimate result of that ruling.

I don't think so. Consider how history would have played out without Brown vs..., The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act... The alternative to Brown and MLK would probably have been our own version of the modern history of South Africa, prior to the downfall of Aparthied.

We had blood in the streets and churches without the oppressed taking up arms. Had they decided there was no other alternative, things might have been much bloodier. We had a lot of African Americans come back from Korea and coming back from Viet Nam who weren't so willing to be complacent as had been the case in previous decades.

Can't say for sure but it seems likely to me things would change one way or the other eventually. It did in South Africa where the establishment was very resistant to change.

[Guest zipperzone]

Brown v. BOE might be politically correct but it has led to a plethora of no doubt unintended consequences. It might have even been the best for the country but, I am sorry to say, the jury is still out on the ultimate result of that ruling.

It would indeed be wonderful if a SC ruling or pol edict could suddenly or otherwise lead to equality and justice for all. (Where is Superman when you need him?) However, laws do not make people mentally, physically, spiritually or economically equal and never will. That is not a negative comment on black folks, poor folks or any other kinds of folks, just a comment on how things "are".

However, all we can do is keep trying to make things as good as possible, correct? After all, fairness is not a political doctrine but merely the attitude and actions of each of us individually to each other.

Best regards,

RA1

To me it all boils down to one simple phrase - The Golden Rule

"DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"

[RA1]

I agree. However, too many folks seem to follow the "other" golden rule. Those that have the gold, rule.

Best regards,

RA1

[BiBottomBoy]

The rule of life: Most people suck until they are forced to not be assholes.

[RA1]

That is an interesting statement. I have tried to fit it into various phases of my own life, meaning did my parents "push" me into not being an asshole? Did my friends in HS? Did my friends in college? My business friends? Did it work? Do I still suck? (Of course I do but not necessarily as a "life pattern")

If you wish, please extropolate what you think this means in your life and for the world at large.

Best regards,

RA1

[BiBottomBoy]

I should have been more clear. People in groups tend to be pieces of shit. Individuals are often not pieces of shit, either because they are good people or because it's more dangerous to be a piece of shit if you don't have backup.

But, when people come together in groups, selfishness is the default position unless they are pressured to act like reasonable people.

[RA1]

Thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree that can be the case, not always, but a tendency.

Best regards,

RA1