Dept. of Homeland Security: Laptops, Phones Can Be Searched Based on Hunches

[cali]

Sadly, many DUers think this is just fine and dandy! My sentiments? Fuck the administration. The Obama admin is every bit as bad as the bush admin when it comes to overarching surveillance- if not worse and I have no more tolerance for this dog shit then I would if it was a repuke admin.

U.S. border agents should continue to be allowed to search a traveler’s laptop, cellphone or other electronic device and keep copies of any data on them based on no more than a hunch, according to an internal Homeland Security Department study. It contends limiting such searches would prevent the U.S. from detecting child pornographers or terrorists and expose the government to lawsuits.

The 23-page report, obtained by The Associated Press and the American Civil Liberties Union under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, provides a rare glimpse of the Obama administration’s thinking on the long-standing but controversial practice of border agents and immigration officers searching and in some cases holding for weeks or months the digital devices of anyone trying to enter the U.S.

Since his election, President Barack Obama has taken an expansive view of legal authorities in the name of national security, asserting that he can order the deaths of U.S. citizens abroad who are suspected of terrorism without involvement by courts, investigate reporters as criminals and — in this case — read and copy the contents of computers carried by U.S. travelers without a good reason to suspect wrongdoing.

<snip>

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/05/dept-of-homeland-security-laptops-phones-can-be-searched-based-on-hunches/

The DHS study, dated December 2011, said the border searches do not violate the First or Fourth amendments, which prohibit restrictions on speech and unreasonable searches and seizures. It specifically objected to a tougher standard in a 1986 government policy that allowed for only cursory review of a traveler’s documents.

[fasttense]

1. Those searches of our private conversations are NOT based on hunches

they are based on the whim of some lucky sperm club winner, rich guy.

Whatever the whims of our uber rich masters are, Homeland (Fatherland) Security will fulfill them. There's got to be some rich f**k making money off of this.

[In_The_Wind]

4. +1000

[Aerows]

10. You know

that this gets exploited left and right. There's no telling how many people are getting blackmailed due to private information getting into their hands.

[Dustlawyer]

11. Our liberal President, yea right!

[demwing]

2. Ooh! You're gonna get it when Prosense hears

[cali]

5. yep. and I'll be called an Obama hater by some dimwit.

[boilerbabe]

6. by quite a few dimwits most likely. it's early yet. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

9. FULL IGNORE will too

Now, where are they?

[ProSense]

14. "Fuck the administration. The Obama admin is every bit as bad as the bush admin"

That's from the OP. I blame you. You shouldn't have voted for Obama.

[cali]

18. how charmingly and typically dishonest of you to cut my quote off

here's the rest of it:

"....when it comes to overarching surveillance".

Of course there are other issues.

I'm disgusted with your tactics.

[ProSense]

19. Who cares?

how charmingly and typically dishonest of you to cut my quote off

here's the rest of it:

"....when it comes to overarching surveillance".

Of course there are other issues.

I'm disgusted with your tactics

...what the hell the rest of that nonsense states?

Collecting phone records has been ongoing, it's not a friggin surprise. Hell, Bush did it without even going through the FISA court.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2955105

Still, Have you ever heard of warrrantless wiretapping?

[ProSense]

25. No, it's not a fucking "he did it too" defense.

And fuck the condescending "honey" bullshit.

"I don't give a shit what YOU think. You're an apologist for everything or anything out of this administration."

I don't give a fuck what you think. That "dimwit" was likely right, and then some.

[Fumesucker]

26. Obama voted for the FISA bill which included telecom immunity

Breaking a promise to vote against it I might add.

Obama owns the Bush wiretapping too.

[ProSense]

27. Breaking? n/t

[Pholus]

37. So, ON SURVEILLANCE, what has he done for me lately? nt

[demwing]

24. Cheers

There are some things about which I just wish I was wrong

[ProSense]

28. I posted this just for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022956167

[demwing]

30. Hey, how original

Prosense links to a Prosense post to support a Prosense argument. Congratulations, you have a consensus of you.

[ProSense]

31. How does

"Prosense links to a Prosense post to support a Prosense argument. Congratulations, you have a consensus of you."

...it feel to be obsessed?

[cali]

33. you tell us. you're the one obsessed. it must get tiring, dear.

[ProSense]

36. There you go again

"you tell us. you're the one obsessed. it must get tiring, dear."

...with the condescending crap. I mean, why ruin a perfectly good day of anti-Obama opportunism worrying about me?

[demwing]

34. I imagine it feels Prosensy

Sneak a peek and let us know:

[ProSense]

38. LOL!

I'm loving the attention. I really am pleased that I'm fucking with the heads of those who can't stand my posting here.

[progressoid]

42. I don't think it's an obsession.

It's just an observation of something that no other no other duer does as much.

[demmiblue]

35. "Congratulations, you have a consensus of you."

Ok, that was !

[truebrit71]

50. I concur...

...very indeed!! :-D

[hootinholler]

45. DUZY! n/t

[G_j]

57. so you are saying stay home and don't vote? nt

[badtoworse]

3. +1

[mwooldri]

7. I guess there is a good reason to have an offshore "cloud".

How can data be searched for when there is no data on the device? Need to look at the data? Sure.... just need a court order in the country where the data is physically stored.

[HipChick]

46. If you are keeping data on a local drive

I might consider they deserve to be searched for dumbarseness..

[marble falls]

8. Due process? Who needs that, anyway?

[Safetykitten]

12. Again kids, if you are not doing anything "bad", then no worries.

[MindPilot]

13. Right up until what ever unbad thing I'm doing

is moved into the bad column.

[Safetykitten]

15. You shop at Costco right? If so what could you possibly do that could be "bad"?

[MindPilot]

22. Yesterday I bought some wire at Home Depot

[Safetykitten]

29. Yes, any shopping at approved large store is considered good behavior. You can proceed.

[BlueStreak]

51. However, wire can be used in a bonb, so you will understand

that it will be necessary to track all your movements, for the safety of the people, you understand.

[hobbit709]

16. Dumbphone has no data.

Linux Live on cheap disposable USB stick.

[greytdemocrat]

17. Well,well.

Isn't all THIS just special???

[BrainDrain]

20. DAMMIT!!!

First, no such animal as an offshore "cloud". The "cloud" is a nebulous term for data stored across servers located everywhere. Anyone who thinks that the gov't would hesitate to seed the "cloud" with retrieval algorithms is living in a dream land.

Next point, we screamed and yelled when Bush Jr. did it, we should scream just as loud when Obama does it. Party affiliation is a non-starter. If he man is abusing the rights of the citizens then he deserves our anger and reprobation just as surely as the Shrub.

NO ONE is above the law. We are fed that lie from the time we are kids. It is high time it becomes the reality of the land and not just just bandied about. If we are told that we, the little people, can be held accountable for our misdeeds, then they the supposedly not so little people can and should be held accountable for theirs. It is up to us, (the little people) to demand, NOT SO QUIETLY, that they are.

Free Bradley Manning.

Free ourselves.

[treestar]

23. The administration is just using the tools allowed to it

by previous congress/President. If a law is unconstitutional, challenge it - someone affected can use that. This is how it has been done since Marbury v. Madison.

[enlightenment]

54. Somebody else did it.

That argument really does suggest that the administration is incapable of independent thought and just blithely follows the path set out by others - are you sure that's the direction you want to go?

Not very flattering to the administration.

[treestar]

58. No, I think these laws should be enforced and used

So they can be challenged. If that is what they are doing, I like it. Letting them sit on the books unenforced is wrong. It leaves them not declared unconstitutional. Someone can dust them off in like 2052 or so. Why have that when the SCOTUS could strike them down within a few years?

We let these laws pass, electing the Congress and President who let them become law. It would be giving Presidents too much power to say they can just not enforce them if they don't like them and enforce them if they do like them. Let the law decide. These constant DU outrages that someone enforced a duly passed law are ridiculous. It's like the courts don't exist.

[enlightenment]

60. We have no disagreement there.

Except for the issue of "enforcing and using". I agree that these laws should be challenged, but that does not require their use.

If a law is on the books, it can be legally challenged regardless of whether or not it is being actively enforced.

Yes, Congress passes laws and Presidents sign them (or not) and new sitting Presidents often find themselves saddled with laws that they would not have signed had them been in the Oval office when Congress passed them.

That does not mean the President has to double-down on enforcing a law whose Constitutionality is still up for debate. Which is what President Obama is doing.

This administration is not saying "well, we really don't like this law and believe - as the President stated in 2006 - that it is pretty high-handed and counter to what the Founders would have thought proper . . . BUT we have no choice but to enforce it."

They are saying that this law is a "critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States."

I agree that the issue of the legality of the NSA wiretapping needs to be dealt with in the courts - and I don't disagree that the administration's hand are - to a degree - tied.

Still, it is a bitter pill we're being asked to swallow - and it's not unreasonable to think that a Democratic President who once rejected it on principle would at least sweeten the taste by sticking to the principles he stood by in 2006 instead of telling us that he now agrees with Bush's reasons for pushing the passage of this law.

[William769]

32. 55 year old Lesbians watch out!

[rusty fender]

52. Shit!

[ellie]

39. Yes, I remember before the 2008 election

that Obama was on board with this. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Good luck in getting that power back.

[blackspade]

40. This shit is out of control.

I voted for Obama based on the assumption that he was going to restore civil liberties, not take more away.
More authoritarian bullshit.

[NoMoreWarNow]

43. yep-- totally out of control

the worst part is there's so much shit going on, things like this just get sucked don the memory hole.

[woo me with science]

53. Yep, they are ratcheting up rather than fixing anything.

and they are spending millions on propaganda in the media and on discussion boards like this to tell you that it's all okay...

[PrestonLocke]

41. This is why I use TrueCrypt

It's free, and it works.

Nobody (right now), not even the gooberment can break the encryption. It can be setup to the point where it's impossible to prove that there is an encrypted volume on the machine, I cannot be compelled to give up a password to a file that can't be proven to exist.

Sad that we are treated as though the state already has search warrants for every American citizen, but they will not be accessing anything on my harddrive.

[NoMoreWarNow]

44. sounds good, but how do you know it works?

and that's the problem with this spying-- it's just a total waste because anyone who really has something major to hide, will use tough encryption methods.

[PrestonLocke]

48. Good question...

Other than this news article from 2010 http://news.techworld.com/security/3228701/
Which isn't proof positive at all. Truecrypt uses industry standard encryption methods, that have been proven to work, and it's open source. I haven't looked at the source code, so plainly, I do not know 100% that it does work. I assume that there is a vulnerability, there always is, I'm just not sure anybody knows about it.

I think the real idea is the plausible deniability that the software offers. It obfuscates the data in a way that makes it impossible to tell if there is an encrypted volume or not. I know there's been at least one ruling on not having to provide a password without evidence of real data existing: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=38545

I think here in wisconsin, there was a similar judgment in another truecrypt case.

[NoMoreWarNow]

61. thanks-- the question is, when will the Feds outlaw encryption like this?

[Xithras]

55. Truecrypt does work.

First, Truecrypt is an open source product, and people routinely scan the source and compare the MD5's of the compiled source against the published binaries to make sure that nobody is tampering with it. It's been thoroughly audited by a dozen different third party groups who couldn't find any backdoors or security holes.

Second, there was a rather infamous case that proved this point. There was a Brazilian banker arrested for financial crimes a few years back who refused to decrypt his Truecrypt protected drive. The Brazilian government tried for a half year to decrypt it, and eventually asked the U.S. FBI for help. The United States government tried FOR A YEAR to decrypt the drive before returning it and admitting that they couldn't do so. Brazil couldn't prove the worst of the charges because of it, though the guy did end up getting sent to prison for a decade for bribing the police and government officials.

It's a good program to encrypt your data, but it does still have the same security hole as all other encryption software...you. It doesn't matter how solid the encryption is...if the government really wants the data, they can usually find a way to coerce you into handing the password over.

[Arctic Dave]

47. Yep. Fuck Obama.

He has been nothing but a total disappointment.

[G_j]

56. agreed

completely unacceptable!

[Demo_Chris]

59. Pres Obama has claimed the power to kill americans on his whim...

Anytime, anywhere, with no judicial review or congressional oversight.

If we were fine with that, and apparently we were, why then would we care about something like this? This is just the latest BS, but it's not new. Our government -- and this administration far more than the last -- no longer feels restrained by the constitution or bill of rights. The next revelation will be worse, as will every one that follows.

And so long as it's a Democrat people here will defend it. When it becomes a Republican, then we'll "freak out" and maybe hold a march or a drum circle or a sing along. And the beat goes on.

[woo me with science]

62. Is that in the Fourth Amendment?

No unreasonable search or seizure, "except on a hunch"?