Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Suspicion not required for border laptop seizures
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:05:06 -0700
________________________________________ From: Declan McCullagh [declan () well com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 7:22 PM To: David Farber Cc: Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Suspicion not required for border laptop seizures Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
The wording of the policy bothers me even more than the policy itself. For one thing, while the discussion has been in terms of "they can do this when you enter the country", the policy applies to "information possessed by individuals who are encountered by CBP at the border, functional equivalent of the border, or extended border." Does that apply to outgoing laptops? The document says speaks of "evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws." Export?
Good point. The new DHS policy applies to _outgoing_ laptops too. Specifically, DHS has claimed the right to seize the hardware and "analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, re-enter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States." See my article for details: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004646-38.html The DHS policy also mentions "copyright or trademark laws." I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to scanning hard drives and iPods for evidence of pirated software, music, videos, etc. -- which in some cases would provide evidence of criminal violations of the NET Act. At the very least it gives the *AAs a new opportunity for political activism.
I'm also unclear on what the "functional equivalent of the border, or extended border" are. Given the policies about checking for undocumented aliens on I-5 north of San Diego, does this mean that CBP can look at any data within San Diego? What are their limits?
A Congressional Research Service report defines functional equivalents thusly: (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31826.pdf) >>>The “functional equivalent” of a border is generally the first practical detention point after a border crossing or the final port of entry. It is justified because in essence, it is no different than a search conducted at the border and occurs only because of the impossibility of requiring the subject searched to stop at the physical border. The second concept is "extended border," which the CRS defines thusly: >>>Under the “extended border search” doctrine, government officials may conduct a warrantless search beyond the border or its functional equivalent if (1) the government officials have reasonable certainty or a “high degree of probability” that a border was crossed; (2) they also have reasonable certainty that no change in the object of the search has occurred between the time of the border crossing and the search; and (3) they have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity was occurring. I'd have to do more research to know how this applies in practice, but it strikes me as a test that might sound good in theory but is applied loosely in practice. (I'm sure someone on IP knows more about this.) The I-5 "extended border" stops you're talking about are, supposedly, to detect illegal aliens. In U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, the Supreme Court said that checkpoint stops are OK because "neither the vehicle nor its occupants are searched, and visual inspection of the vehicle is limited to what can be seen without a search." I can imagine circumstances in which DHS would try to extend "extended border" searches to copying the contents of electronic devices in cars on I-5. But I'm not sure, even given the composition of this Supreme Court, that DHS would be allowed to get away with it for too long. -Declan ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Suspicion not required for border laptop seizures David Farber (Aug 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Suspicion not required for border laptop seizures David Farber (Aug 01)
- Re: Suspicion not required for border laptop seizures David Farber (Aug 01)
- Re: Suspicion not required for border laptop seizures David Farber (Aug 01)