Of laptops and US border searches

meh, I'm not worried about it...

A) They make me power it up to prove it's basically a laptop

B) I've had to take out a battery & CD Rom to prove that it wasn't just a shell.

C) The hard drive is encrypted.

D) The legal department in the company I work for, would probably insist on one, if not two conditions being met:

1) Probable Cause

2) Search Warrant naming either me or my employer as suspects in an investigation.

Since I am the only one being inconvenienced, I have no problems sitting in a holding cell being questioned about the contents of my hard drive, but I will not give them unrestricted access to it unless my employer allows me to. If they don't, and my laptop may or may not contain company sensitive information, then I don't have a choice.

After which I will happily send a bill to DHS for the hours of my time, they wasted, and if it's not paid within 30 days, I'm going to find the sleaziest trial attorney and file a civil suit for unlawful search and seizure. And I'll register a serious beef with Human Resources because legal hung me out in the wind to twist. So, I view it as a potential win/win... Unless there's a cavity search, then all bets are off.

How about this...

I don't know how far this will get you, but if you're taking your lappy on holiday, perhaps some variant on this idea will work.

Bring along a CD of a live system of your choice (Knoppix, DSL, Mepis, etc.), making sure it will work properly on your laptop. The day before your flight back, move whatever sensitive information you'd need onto a convenient USB flash drive, then remove your lappy's hard drive and mail it back home using your carrier of choice (taking into consideration that if you're going to an area/land/country where you wouldn't trust the mail service as far as you could throw a stamp, then leave either the lappy and/or the hard drive at home) after you've Then put the live CD distro in the CD/DVD drive.

At the Airport, if the TSA wants you to boot up your lappy, the Live CD will boot. If questioned, say that the hard drive connection is "fried," so there's no hard drive in it. Explain that your lappy is very secure (because the system can't be written to), as well as undesirable (because of the "blown hard drive port") and you haven't seen the need to repair it yet. The TSA can't "plant" any dodgy URLs into your browser, because the system can't be written to. The laptop boots up and is fully functional. There's no danger of having anything untoward for them to find, so you should be home free. When you get home, maybe a day or so later, your hard drive is delivered safe and sound (hopefully) with all your sensitive information intact.

It's not a perfect plan, by any means, but it's at least one way to protect yourself from unconstitutional searches.

@Jacqui

Regarding damage to equipment allegedly caused by airport screening machines...

a) newer security systems are smarter and use lower dosages, thereby invalidating sample sets using older systems,

b) how do you know the problem was with the security regime, not the travel regime? e.g. maybe it was the use of laptops on aircraft (in turbulence) that was killing the disks, not the travel through the x-ray machine?

I'm not saying that the security at airports ISN'T bad for laptops. Just that we don't know that it IS!

missing the point

a) Resetting Focus: many laws are deliberately held vague, so that you can apply them when you want against the people you want. The Al Capone story is a nice counter example that illustrates what happens in the absence of FlexiLaw

b) The Means: War on Terror is all nonsense - it's not about the contents, it's the package. Who can politically refuse to secure the homeland? You can't be against law that improves the security of your constituents. Your adversary will see to that. The content is another matter. Create FlexiLaw to address your needs, wrap it into War on Terror packaging that no one can refuse and you are guaranteed to have your law passed. (Consider all the ridiculous things that money was spent on to improve security)

c) The Goal: no one cares about pedophiles or you stealing music (think storms in tea cups). When these issues go national it's because they are the flavor of the month. [Consider the number of pedophiles really out there, the number that are caught/convicted, the number that receive national attention, and the size of the budgets granted to hunt for these issues.] The goal is that governments want to spy on each other, and in this case the Europeans are still well within focus (http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia2.htm), i.e. they are as corrupt as ever. (see for example “The arms deal they called the dove” or “SIEMENS CORRUPTION SCANDAL”. So you create background noise of random searches so that the targeted seizure/search of a laptop is statistically coherent. FlexiLaw will ensure that you can do what you want, when you want to do it, targeting who ever you want. Things like torture in Guatanamo are a just work-around when FlexiLaw is not available.

From what I hear, the solution is newly imaged laptops that only contain the data absolutely required for the purpose/transaction/trip at hand.

Trade secrets have no reason to be on a laptop, unless you are bringing them to your US business partner as part of the purpose of your trip.

So if the laptop were seized, you only reveal what your business partner (and the host country) already has. If it is bugged, no matter - it gets wiped and will not be re-used for "secret" information.

This applies to all countries – some go about it in a more round-about way and try to keep it quiet (US), some are more direct (Google: Hans Buehler Tehran).

But back to the article: the outcome of the review is immaterial, because other FlexiLaw will fill the gaps when this is no longer the flavor of the month, to return any lost flexibility.

Nice Strawman

"The consequences of the government's argument would be that they could, at the border, seize your daughter's iPod and lock her up if they thought the songs were not licensed."

Strawman.

As we've seen how customs agents deal with trademark infringement (counterfeit goods) for personal use, why should we think they're more severe with mere copyright infringement?

Go'mint Property

I heard that after presenting a software/powerpoint to a US agency , this act transferred the copyright of such material to the G'mint and in one case a traveller was denied permission to LEAVE the US with his laptop as it now contained confidential material. Allegedly. Sanitise, take presentations on CD-ROM, eeePc's or just stay at home to help defeat terrrorrizm?

This will only catch the small fish. And a whole bunch of innocents too.

Real criminals are not stupid enough to go through customs with an unencrypted hard drive.

This will do very little to fight crime while eroding the right to privacy.

False posities (eg naturists who have harmless family photos on their laptop) will be main ones to suffer from this, not criminals.

News flash

And your average USAian is in bewilderment when they realise what the rest of the civilised world thinks of there country at large. This should not be a news flash really

Travel less is one option

Personally I am choosing to travel less often to the US. This way I do not need to worry what is on my laptop, mp3 player, various memory cards, or even the state of my underwear.

I have nothing on these devices that I wish to hide and I totally respect the rights of customs to inspect the devices in the name of security. The reason I want to keep away has nothing to do with with the nature of the laws but everything to do with the way they are enforced.

Perhaps it's just bad luck on my part, but every one of the customs officials I've encountered at US airports has been an utterly objectionable tyrant that seems to want to inflict the missery that is his or her life onto the travelling public. Yet somehow their neighbour to the North seem able to employ well adjusted happy people to perform the same job.

NDAs

I don't understand somthing...

Why do people seem to think that:

1) NDA's matter to Law enforcment?They don't. For a start most of them have a clause in them about only revealing the infomation to "autorised persons, including law enforcment agencys" and even if they did not, they should.

2) That UK C&E need "Reasonable cause" to stop people. I know the artical was about the US, but people seem to be applying it to the UK. The UK has no such laws. Law enforcment can stop anyone any time.

@Pete - Right to rip apart everything

"One of the scarey aspects of them is they can literally rip your suitcase apart looking for contraband, and you have no recourse for compensation."

Very, very true. Thats what happened to my dad, he went to South America only to find his Samsonite ripped open on arrival, and a TSA note inside his luggage noting something along the lines of "This suitcase was pried open for security inspection reasons, and we are not responsible for missing and/or damaged stuff". This was one of those suitcases with "combination locks" which we had since the early 90's. Thing is, post-2001 suitcases now have "DHS approved" locks that can be opened by TSA and save them the hassle.

For subsequent trips, my dad bought the aforementioned approved locks, new suitcases ... and decided to make all flights from across the border, in Mexico. It's more expensive, but at least it isn't as annoying as flying from the US. Guess why "no US stop" flights are getting more popular these days...

@Elf and others...

It may very well be illegal for un-sworn, unbonded 'security personnel' to violate your NDAs. So? What's your point? This is the government of what was once known as the "United States of America" we're talking about here. Why do you think they'd be more law-abiding or even law-aware at Kennedy Airport than they'd be at Karbala?

Remember the famous quote from ("our") George II back in 2000. "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator." Well, "9/11" gave the people who tell him what to pretend to think carte blanche to be American versions of a much less competent and compassionate Stalin. We Yanks more or less woke up in 2006 and elected a bunch of people to Congress who promised to put things right. Unfortunately, the leadership (particularly in the House, where it matters) remain in the pseudo-Stalins' back pockets, handy when an ass-wipe is needed.

What once was the United States of America is no longer a free, democratic country with a government representative of the majority of its people's interests, and those of us who *do* care about the "old" America would greatly appreciate it if ordinary folks (and their Governments) around the world would get that through their heads and act accordingly. As long as the situation remains somewhere between Orwellian and Kafkaesque, the presumption of any beneficial, rational behavior by "Those In Charge" is not only completely invalid, but for those who do care about the rule of law, at best counterproductive.

For at least a quarter-century after World War II, the US at least sold its people on the idea that it was helping people in other countries stand up to unjust, repressive governments, that oftentimes "we were the only ones big enough to help." Now, unfortunately, it's we who need the help. As with the early Soviet Union, as with pre-WW II Germany, many of us who can no longer countenance what is being done to us and to others, in our name, have left our homeland with the hope of returning one day, but with no presently reasonable expectation of ever doing so. Some thought the Soviets could never be contained; they were. Some thought that countries like apartheid South Africa and drug-lord Colombia could never change; they did. They did because the people and governments of the world stood up and said "If you want to have anything to do with us, you MUST change. You WILL change." It's time to fight that battle once more, against an even bigger, more powerful and seemingly implacable foe than the USSR. The current régime has repeatedly proven its contempt for honor, decency, the rule of law, public opinion. Those whose interests it DOES serve have proven, repeatedly, that they have no intention of changing. It's time for the world, instead of waiting for "America" to lead the cause of freedom, to rally together until America is free once more.

AC because I know and can prove that I'm on the TSA no-fly list; know and can prove that my communications the last few years I lived in central North America were routinely intercepted, and therefore decline to give the régime yet another club to beat me about with, without them at least doing a LITTLE work for it.

Oh man

Someone build me a rocket so I can get the Phuck off this planet, everyone is clearly insane. The ice sheets are melting faster than anyone expected, the sheep are bleating about privacy invasion by their governments, China are murdering anyone they want, Vista SP1 rollout is hardly a blip on the news and BT want to target advertising at me (by selling my confidential information) as the world goes to hell in a handbasket.

I thought the world was supposed to get better when Russia dissolved into squabbling neighbour states, but turns out America really was no better than them, how many wars are they running at the moment? Afghanistan, Iraq - and maybe Iran?

The alien 'cos I really need a lift somewhere else...

Tony F Paulazzo.

Yet another reason...

a huge proportion of the rest of the world hates and/or mistrusts the USA.

The forces of "law and order" in the (former) Land of the Free have completely and utterly lost the fucking plot. I am still surprised by every new story along these lines (though I shouldn't be by now!).

I truly believe that the vast majority of the American People are now so wrapped up in their own little world that they are unable to see that the 'freedoms' their forefathers fought and died for are not being eroded, but DEMOLISHED.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Before you end up living in a society where the 'Orwellian Nightmare' is actually a freedom-filled fantasyland by comparison to your own.

PS. We Brits need to take a long hard look at what's being proposed by our "leaders" before it's too fucking late too!

After the Big Sleep ....

"The question is, why would a bad person keep incriminating data on a laptop when online storage is easily available and accessible over a secure web connection?" ..... By Nomen Publicus Posted Monday 24th March 2008 12:15 GMT

Nomen Publicus,

I think it safest if everyone realised that a secure web connection is really a secured web connection and all are most likely susceptible and/or vulnerable to tapping.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" ... By Graham Dawson Posted Monday 24th March 2008 16:52 GMT

The important power word to explore and polish there would be "just", Graham. What you give is what you get is a simple failsafe yardstick by which to gauge likely reaction to any decision ..... which is just some Imaginative Role Reversal Thinking coming into Play whenever you jump/switch places with the victims/recipients of your thoughts to feel the Power and the Pain for Real, even though IT is a Virtual Processing of Imagination in your Mind.

"Steganography ... Game over" By Pizza Posted Tuesday 25th March 2008 14:04 GMT

.....and New Games Start, Pizza? :-) I concur with your comment, too.

If Yin is Cryptography, ITs Yang is Steganographic.

"The alien 'cos I really need a lift somewhere else..." ... By Tony Paulazzo Posted Wednesday 26th March 2008 07:06 GMT

Tony,

Mosey on over/come on down and grab yourself a beer in the Departures Lounge ..... "Reading from the Same Page ...." .. Posted Wednesday 26th March 2008 10:05 GMT ....

http://comments.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/25/sun_yen_juniper/

"PS. We Brits need to take a long hard look at what's being proposed by our "leaders" before it's too fucking late too!" .... By dervheid

Posted Wednesday 26th March 2008 08:38 GMT

What leaders? Although it is pretty cheeky of Gordon if he is to plead with Uncle Sam to show some Lead that can be followed. Some would maybe posit that a forlorn hope and he would do better showing IT himself ..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/nspeech126.xml

Unless he does, it means that no one is in Government either capable of providing it or of advising where to get it .... which would be dire and pathetic and an affront to all that they are in Lead Offices.

Civil Serfs rather than Civil Servants or if you are into todays Future Virtual Reality Fields ....Civil Servers.

Thought crimes

The Inquisition and the Index of Prohibited Books. Bigoted medieval torturers and one of their excuses for torturing and burning the Unpalatable. The Department of Homeland Security (and its clones elsewhere) and Child Pornography/Bomb Recipes. Bigoted present-day torturers and a couple of their excuses for abusing the Unpalatable. Authoritarian, sadistic, religiously-motivated enemies of humanity.

Reading, observation, discussion - all equated with immediate Will to Action. What if the Thought Content of your lappy is contradictory, or multidictory? How many pix of Dubya are needed to neutralize pix of kiddy porn? What crimes could you be suspected of if you had pix of say Che, the napalmed girl on that road in Vietnam, or the Pope, or Ken Lay, or Hitler, or Dag Hammarskjöld, or Mandela in jail, or Mandela as president of RSA, etc.

Or Philip Roth's novel The Conspiracy against America, or any one of any number of dystopian films about corrupt US leaders or governements? Any one of which you could have been force-fed as in-flight "entertainment" before being searched.

Last time I went through an airport departure check was Heathrow. I was stressed and fuming. I said as much to my travelling companion. The good lady between passport control and the x-ray machine (how many bloody layers have they got??!!) immediately asked me why I was stressed and if it was due to

a) dislike of flying;

b) dislike of security;

c) medical reasons.

I said it was cos my luggage was too bloody heavy and proceeded to the queue to remove my boots.

"Dislike of security"!! Wait till they get remote heart-beat and sweat sensors installed!

Tux cos of the ease of including a command line boot option...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Easy Fix

Easy fix , when you know how !

The ways around this are legion can range from using hidden partitions on installed hard drives to installing a new hard drive replete with factory fresh image and all the back up software on SD flash memory cards in your digital camera bag (think of the possibilities with the newer model digital movie cameras that use hard drives for a recording medium ) and so forth !

To hide in plain sight is the oldest con job on the book too !

Don't forget with all major international hotel chains explore the possibility of express mail forwarding to your next destination too within the chain group as an option !

Reminds me of the old story...

There was a man who regularly flew to the US. Every week, for work (or so he claimed), he landed at JFK with his laptop.

And every week, the customs officer at the airport searched the laptop, convinced this man was smuggling something. But every week, there was nothing illegal on the laptop.

This went on for years and years, with the customs officer never finding anything.

Some time later, both men had retired. But they happened to meet. The customs officer turned to the man and said "Look, I know you were smuggling something. But I have to admit, I've no idea what! I don't work for customs any more, so can you PLEASE tell me what it was!!"

The man replied "laptops".

@ Anonymous

<Quote> As with the early Soviet Union, as with pre-WW II Germany, many of us who can no longer countenance what is being done to us and to others, in our name, have left our homeland with the hope of returning one day, but with no presently reasonable expectation of ever doing so.</Quote)

Clearly I don't know every aspect of your life or your family's lives but it seems to me that if you want change in the USA you should participate in that fight in your home land. Leaders and soliders don't accomplish much with overseas telephone calls. If you are truely being harassed and have proof then fight the good fight. You'll have to sacrafice to make your children's children's lives better.

Nutt'n but love for ya baby.

What is reasonable?

I think the big difference is that when they look through your luggage, they dont keep the contents. I suspect no one would mind if they ask you to flick through files/folders, but copying it and keeping it is too much.

A more interesting question...

Can they hook your laptop to an Internet connection when they search it? Say my file browser automatically mounts a remote filesystem - they're now, perhaps inadvertently, searching someone else's server which never even crossed any border.

But are they competent?

There's a risk that a careless search could damage a system, and it seems that Customs agencies around the world claim that they have no liability.

"Oh dear, did I just delete the Windows folder? What's that for, anyway?"

Do these people have _any_ documented competence in using computers? There are some incredibly easy qualifications available. and I've seen people struggling with the courses, even after over a decade of a British education system that is supposed to be crammed with computers as tools.

And if they don't have documented competence, couldn't a lawyer demolish their evidence in court.

"So there was something that 'looked funny', Mr. Jones. And what was that?"

"I didn't see that Windows thingy when the computer started. There was some sort of cartoon penguin, and then a lot of words covering the screen. Obviously, it had been set up to hide something."

Simple...

Just set xorg.conf to init 3, give em a CLI with an unused user account and hand it over off a fresh boot.

"no sir, I have not encrypted anything on here, have a look"

Another Common Misconception

Many people miss this one

In the U.S. if an officer comes up to you and asks "May I search your laptop?", he is asking explicitly for your permission, not for you to fork it over. The first thing to do is ask what his grounds for searching your laptop are. If he doesn't provide a reasonable excuse, by law, you have every right to answer with a resounding "No you may not!". If he does, however, you're kinda screwed.

at Bhavin Desai

really? then read Royer v. Florida.

at zacn

read the caess i listed far earlier. if consent is requested you can say no, they can only search (other than as prescribed in Terry) if they make an arrest or have a warrant or there is immediate articulable danger (clear and present). in a Terry Stop they may detain only in place, you are not compelled, nor can you be punished, to answer. they may "frisk" only your outer clothing (no bags) ad they may only remove in that "feeling" frisk a weapon that would put them or the public in jeopardy, e.g. a gun.

anything more requires arrest or warrant. they courts (higher courts) will NOT look favorably on BS stops and arrests.

i know, i've been there (court).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Royer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

and most of all...

http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.htm

also see: http://edwardlawson.com/