I find this Washington Post article very disturbing. Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches.
"The Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which represents 2,500 business executives in the United States and abroad, said it has tracked complaints from several members, including Udy, whose laptops have been seized and their contents copied before usually being returned days later, said Susan Gurley, executive director of ACTE. Gurley said none of the travelers who have complained to the ACTE raised concerns about racial or ethnic profiling. Gurley said none of the travelers were charged with a crime."
Maria Udy, a British citizen and marketing executive had her company laptop seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles to London in December 2006. The only reason given was the agent had a "security concern" and a year later she still hasn't had the laptop returned even though she was told it would only be taken for 10-15 days. WTF? This isn't customs because she was leaving the country.
"The U.S. government has argued in a pending court case that its authority to protect the country's border extends to looking at information stored in electronic devices such as laptops without any suspicion of a crime. In border searches, it regards a laptop the same as a suitcase. "It should not matter . . . whether documents and pictures are kept in 'hard copy' form in an executive's briefcase or stored digitally in a computer. The authority of customs officials to search the former should extend equally to searches of the latter," the government argued in the child pornography case being heard by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco."
I guess it makes sense that customs has expanded search powers but the 4th amendment should apply somehow. I have no problem with them looking for weapons or drugs. I have problems with them looking at, let alone copying or seizing, documents like diaries, trade secrets, personal correspondence, etc. I can't think of much that I would let them look at. I'm sure the first argument someone would make would be plans for a nuclear device. If it was a grad students project I wouldn't allow it. If it were a terrorists plans sure. But the problem is knowing which it is and there's no way to do that without other evidence. You don't get to look at everyone's diary because someone, might have plans for a terrorist nuclear device. If you need to convince Republicans, the government doesn't get to look at all company internal documents because someone might have plans to build a nuclear bomb.
3 comments:
Wow, that is just wrong. Everyone has something on their computer that they would rather not share with others. Whether work-related, photos, stories, personal emails, web site histories, or who knows what - we are entitled to privacy. This is a serious invasion of privacy.
Plus it is stupid.
Plus it is my property, and I can't believe anyone has the right to confiscate a $2000 piece of property with absolutely no cause.
My company has a policy of that all laptops which travel must be encrypted. It was intended to protect company data if the laptop os stolen and possibly to prevent data loss in foreign countries.
I could never imagine a need for encryption to protect data from the U.S. government in a routine return to the U.S.
I guess the best advice is to encrypt your data. In the stories I have read the officials have asked for passwords. I don;t know how easy it would be to refuse to give them but one could try.
I don't know what I would do if this happened to me. Probably get upset and mad. I don't own the laptop, it belongs to the company, but I would still resist it being taken from me because it is my responsibility.
I'm curious what encryption you use.
The right to refuse to give a password based on the 5th amendment is being tested in In re Boucher. A federal judge has affirmed the right though the decision is subject to appeal.
Post a Comment