BKKanalist Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Not sure if this should be here or technology. EVERYONE should use some form of encryption now... ......................................... January 7, 2008 Sidebar If Your Hard Drive Could Testify ... By ADAM LIPTAK A couple of years ago, Michael T. Arnold landed at the Los Angeles International Airport after a 20-hour flight from the Philippines. He had his laptop with him, and a customs officer took a look at what was on his hard drive. Clicking on folders called â??Kodak picturesâ? and â??Kodak memories,â? the officer found child pornography. The search was not unusual: the government contends that it is perfectly free to inspect every laptop that enters the country, whether or not there is anything suspicious about the computer or its owner. Rummaging through a computerâ??s hard drive, the government says, is no different than looking through a suitcase. One federal appeals court has agreed, and a second seems ready to follow suit. There is one lonely voice on the other side. In 2006, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles suppressed the evidence against Mr. Arnold. â??Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory,â? Judge Pregerson wrote, in explaining why the government should not be allowed to inspect them without cause. â??They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound.â? Computer hard drives can include, Judge Pregerson continued, diaries, letters, medical information, financial records, trade secrets, attorney-client materials and â?? the clincher, of course â?? information about reportersâ?? â??confidential sources and story leads.â? But Judge Pregersonâ??s decision seems to be headed for reversal. The three judges who heard the arguments in October in the appeal of his decision seemed persuaded that a computer is just a container and deserves no special protection from searches at the border. The same information in hard-copy form, their questions suggested, would doubtless be subject to search. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., took that position in a 2005 decision. It upheld the conviction of John W. Ickes Jr., who crossed the Canadian border with a computer containing child pornography. A customs agentâ??s suspicions were raised, the courtâ??s decision said, â??after discovering a video camera containing a tape of a tennis match which focused excessively on a young ball boy.â? It is true that the government should have great leeway in searching physical objects at the border. But the law requires a little more â?? a â??reasonable suspicionâ? â?? when the search is especially invasive, as when the human body is involved. Searching a computer, said Jennifer M. Chacón, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, â??is fairly intrusive.â? Like searches of the body, she said, such â??an invasive search should require reasonable suspicion.â? An interesting supporting brief filed in the Arnold case by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said there have to be some limits on the governmentâ??s ability to acquire information. â??Under the governmentâ??s reasoning,â? the brief said, â??border authorities could systematically collect all of the information contained on every laptop computer, BlackBerry and other electronic device carried across our national borders by every traveler, American or foreign.â? That is, the brief said, â??simply electronic surveillance after the fact.â? The government went even further in the case of Sebastien Boucher, a Canadian who lives in New Hampshire. Mr. Boucher crossed the Canadian border by car about a year ago, and a customs agent noticed a laptop in the back seat. Asked whether he had child pornography on his laptop, Mr. Boucher said he was not sure. He said he downloaded a lot of pornography but deleted child pornography when he found it. Some of the files on Mr. Boucherâ??s computer were encrypted using a program called Pretty Good Privacy, and Mr. Boucher helped the agent look at them, apparently by entering an encryption code. The agent said he saw lots of revolting pornography involving children. The government seized the laptop. But when it tried to open the encrypted files again, it could not. A grand jury instructed Mr. Boucher to provide the password. But a federal magistrate judge quashed that subpoena in November, saying that requiring Mr. Boucher to provide it would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Last week, the government appealed. The magistrate judge, Jerome J. Niedermeier of Federal District Court in Burlington, Vt., used an analogy from Supreme Court precedent. It is one thing to require a defendant to surrender a key to a safe and another to make him reveal its combination. The government can make you provide samples of your blood, handwriting and the sound of your voice. It can make you put on a shirt or stand in a lineup. But it cannot make you testify about facts or beliefs that may incriminate you, Judge Niedermeier said. â??The core value of the Fifth Amendment is that you canâ??t be made to speak in ways that indicate your guilt,â? Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami, wrote about the Boucher case on his Discourse.net blog. But Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at the George Washington University, said Judge Niedermeier had probably gotten it wrong. â??In a normal case,â? Professor Kerr said in an interview, â??there would be a privilege.â? But given what Mr. Boucher had already done at the border, he said, making him provide the password again would probably not violate the Fifth Amendment. There are all sorts of lessons in these cases. One is that the border seems be a privacy-free zone. A second is that encryption programs work. A third is that you should keep your password to yourself. And the most important, as my wife keeps telling me, is that you should leave your laptop at home. ................... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/07bar.html?ei=5090&en=d0caa6c9bacf76ed&ex=1357362000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1199714806-NZ2agd4Kikkv8hShxGsvKg&pagewanted=print Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 ...and here I am now sitting in an airport in the USA...but only flying domestic...lucky me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 You will find that the world over Customs can do the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 They can do whatever they want and do. I'm sometimes reminded when I get stoppped about 3 or 4 times coming from the plane from overseas and its been about 2 or 3 hours in the customs area being shuttled to this or that line to talk to someone else at LAX and someone is outside waiting for me, and I'm getting a bit frustrated that they can hold me longer, overnight and in some cases indefinitely. Asking for a lawyer isn't an option I heard as well if they do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Probably people will talk freely when they see the Customs agents carrying a board and a pail of water. One of the scariest places a person can be at is a US Customs were you have no rights and are not allowed legal advice thru an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanookMahk Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Who cars about proptecting kiddie porn people. Lock'm up with the poofters hoping they get a bum ram daily! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Who cars about proptecting kiddie porn people. Lock'm up with the poofters hoping they get a bum ram daily! So you're an "ends justify the means" proponent? Or you have some mystical ability to pick out the guilty from a crowd of innocents? Or assumption of innocence is just a quaint concept for you, rather than a key foundation of what freedom is about? Or maybe child porn funds terrorism and therefore all privacy guarantees are off, God knows, because if terrorism is mentioned, nobody has a right to have any rights?? It's this shit attitude that has the current fuck-you government tapping phones, torturing people, destroying data ordered by courts to be preserved and generally running roughshod over individuals, both domestic and international, etc., etc. Just curious: where do you live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.