can border agents search your laptops?

yeah u heard it right, border agents can search your laptops
maybe u guys had heard about this but yeah

Quote:

---

Stuart Romm boarded a plane in Las Vegas on February 1, 2004. When he got off the plane in British Columbia, Canada's Border Services Agency stopped Romm for questioning. After learning that Romm had a criminal background, Agent Keith Brown searched his laptop and discovered child porn sites in Romm's Internet history list. Canada then bundled Romm back onto a plane to Seattle, where US Customs agents had a chance to question him further.

They also conducted a forensic scan of his hard drive and turned up images of child pornography in Romm's browser cache. The images had been deleted (intentionally, it appears), but were recovered by an agent using software called "EnCase." Romm then admitted to investigators that he used Google to search for child pornography, and that his "therapy" had failed to help him quit.

The case made its way to a Nevada court, which found Romm guilty. An appeal of the case went to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which was charged with deciding an important issue: can border patrol agents search laptops without a warrant and without probable cause? The court's ruling was handed down on Monday, and said that yes, agents can search laptops for any reason.

The court argued that the forensic analysis fell under the "border search exception to the warrant requirement." This exception was established by United States v. Montoya de Hernandez in 1985, and says that "the government may conduct routine searches of persons entering the United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant." The court goes on to note that international airports count as border terminals, even if not physically located on a US border.

This isn't an especially radical ruling (Customs agents already have the authority to search luggage without cause), and such searches are taking place in other countries as well. Searching laptops, with their vast troves of personal (and usually legal) data, might feel more invasive to travelers, but it's a part of life in the 21st century. Don't be surprised if, on your next business trip, submitting your laptop to an X-ray scan is no longer enough.

---

source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060727-7367.html

and a few other articles about the same subject
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/04/2...te-on-alabama/
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/05/0...g-your-laptop/

That site must be a little left wing or something of that nature. I read the actual appeals court document and it stated that Stuart turned it on for the agents and let them inspect it. It would be the same as consulting to a search of your car and being surprised that they checked your glove box.

You should get hit in the head with a tack hammer if don't have boot passwords, and encrypted volumes on your laptop.


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...571B500580F96/$file/0410648.pdf?openelement

Net2Infinity > Whether he gave consent or not is not what's important in this case, because it doesn't matter whether or not he did (that's what the case is about). If you go by the DoJ S&S manual, you should be surprised by this ruling, because the court ruling does not comply to those rules - rather, the court used the "border search doctrine" to justify its decision.

According to the document from the appeals court, there have been other rulings along the same lines. Sure I don't agree, but once its case law it is as good as the law. Yes, it does make a difference if you give consent, as the article merely said it was searched. This is what happens when you mix 21st century technology with law from the 19th century.


I travel pretty extensively, and have never even been asked to power my laptop on. Then again I dont have a criminal history. =)

I am not going to go reading more on this, I am not following the links, will just discuss what has been presented here. And I am not versed in any way in international law, but these are my observations.

This issue is not as clear as presented. Consent is not an issuer here, and if it was considered at all it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The initiating border agents in question were not that of the U.S. government, the search was done outside the U.S., and the protections of the U.S. Constitution did not apply at all. ( IMHO )
The laws of the country where the initial search took place ( and any treaties signed between that country and the U.S. ) would however apply, while in that country, but may or may not when the person in question re-entered the U.S. And any information obtained may or may not ( IMHO would not ) which was eluded to, be bared in proceedings in the U.S. upon his return.

Because he was sent back, we now we have a person with a known criminal record ( though it did not say what kind of record ) entering the U.S., and now subject to U.S. laws, but undoubtably ( it did not say one way or the other, but could reasonably be assumed here that ) the U.S. Customs officials were alerted by the other jurisdiction of what they had found.

Again, I am not digging further into this case and this particular decision other then what has been presented, but:

If the facts were as outlined above, and the criminal background revealed some type of criminal sexual activity and/or computer crimes ( which could be related to criminal sexual activity ) then the U.S. Customs agents not only had a reason ( which as I understand it is not an absolute necessity under the current laws for Customs agents, ) not only had reasonable suspicion, but now had probable cause, which is enough to obtain a search warrant if this was just a citizen and involving some U.S. authorities, and did not involve borders and customs laws. In this case a warrant could have easily been obtained, but in this case was unnecessary.

If the facts were as outlined above, and the criminal background did not reveal some type of criminal sexual activity and/or computer crimes ( which could be related to criminal sexual activity ) then the U.S. Customs agents may have had reasonable suspicion, ( more then just a reason ) but then again, that far exceeds the need of U.S. Customs agents to delve further.

What puzzles me about this is why the court ( if they did, and it was not the reporter who assigned this stigma ) would include or consider the word reason into this at all. I would not be surprised, if on further appeal, a U.S Supreme Court ruled that aspect irrelevant.

Quote:

---

This isn't an especially radical ruling (Customs agents already have the authority to search luggage without cause), and such searches are taking place in other countries as well.

---

My question is, why do people, who understand that any papers they have in their possession may be searched at a border ( discounting diplomatic immunity ) assume or expect that electronic copies of same would be immune from such searches?

So, go ahead, encrypt the f***ing hard drive, and be held at customs until such time as you give them the password or they crack your encryption.

( again, this depends on the applicable laws of the jurisdiction in question, and whether the local customs officials actually have to answer to anyone for what they do. )

I think this is an important issue to understand, and more importantly that one understands this;
although it appears to apply to a physical search ( that of a physical laptop, ) any decisions concerning this topic may equally apply to any countries borders concerning Internet transmissions as well.

IMHO.

Perhaps if you would have taken a few moments to read the provided links your response wouldn't have been full of assumptions. That article was written by some left wing media, and the actually case in point was well cited in the court documents.

Quote:

---

Perhaps if you would have taken a few moments to read the provided links your response wouldn't have been full of assumptions. That article was written by some left wing media, and the actually case in point was well cited in the court documents.

---

Totally irrelevant comment. The post speaks for itself.

It appears that this is an attempt to pervert this topic into that of a flame war. That was not my intention, I was considering the facts, but Net2Infinity seems intent, so be it.

Net2Infinity, if you have something relevant to add that was not included in this thread, please do so, so those that refer to it in the future can understand your reasoning. Otherwise, STFU.

To rationalize for someone like yourself, a court ( in the U.S. ) usually only considers what is presented in appropriate forum.
If defense or prosecution does not bring out a topic of discussion during arguments in the initial proceedings, the court may not consider any arguments relating, but only those brought out initially.

As far as any assumptions , they were clearly stated as such, and again, have no relevance.

In my response it was clearly stated I did not follow any links, but was based on the information provided in this thread and my understanding of U.S. law, something of which I have demonstrated over the years I have at least a slight understanding of, which you have not.

It was meant to be taken such, period.

Not boasting here, and have never before brought this up, but I have been cited publically by governmental entities for
"Outstanding Scholarship and Leadership in the study of Constitutional Law " here in the U.S.
Fact.
So now that is known.

You do not even state country of your origin, country where you work, etc., even in your profile.
Have you studied any law at all? In what country?

So please elaborate for those that read this thread, what country you are from, and on what basis exactly you formed your opinion, and what facts you used to criticize my post.

So Net2Infinity, either apologize, re-read my post and recant, or explain in a manner conducive to this thread as posted.

Any other members, feel free to speak out.

Well IKnowNot,

Quote:

---

And I am not versed in any way in international law

---

We don't have "border agents" in the UK. At entry and exit points you will see police, immigration, customs and (you won't see them) MI5.

Our customs are far and away the most powerful enforcement agency, having even greater powers than your IRS........ they can search your home and property, at any time without a warrant and they also have powers of seizure, freezing assets etc.

So you arrive at the port and they can search you and your luggage for illegal substances, stolen property, inexplicable funds (money laundering, tax evasion, proceeds of crime), and anything else that is restricted like plants, foodstuffs, animals and so on.

Now, child pr0n and the possession thereof, is illegal in this country. So, it is an "illegal substance" no matter what form it happens to be in, even if it is electronic. I don't think that anyone would have problems with the matter if he had a stack of CDs, DVDs, magazines, and Videos with that sort of stuff on/in them?

A laptop is an electronic storage medium, and is as admissible for search for "illegal substances" as the rest of your luggage. The same would go for digital cameras, cellphones, PDTs and anything else of that nature.

The whole thing would not be an issue in this country, and in quite a few others in Europe as well. Customs officials generally have a blanket right to search anything and everything without warrant..............otherwise they could not do their jobs.

Well, there's a foreign perspective for you





:)

First, that Romm dude should get on the straight path and quit "diddling" while he's on the net.

Second, he should've cleared his internet cache and customs wouldn't have discovered child porn sites in Romm's Internet history list in the first place.

Third, can you spell K-n-o-p-p-i-x?

I am from the US and no I do not have a law background, nor did I know that I needed one to post a reply on this forum. My point was that you didn't need to make any assumptions if you actually read the documents provided. Additionally the article did not reflect the events as they actually occurred. However, reading the court documents and observing the disparity between the events clearly the author of the article leans to the left.

If you are such a legal scholar you would have done some research on the topic instead of lashing out. I don’t recall making any comment that is in conflict with any of your statements. As to answer the questions you posed I believe that my posts clearly reflect the source of my opinion. If you would take a few minutes and read the verdict from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then you would have a frame of reference for my opinion.

I believe you were debating based on the contents of the article and I was referring to the facts from the actual court proceeding. Perhaps this is where the confusion has arisen. I have no doubt of your vast legal knowledge as I was just merely informing others of the actual facts of the case.

It was never my intent to start a flame, nor do I see why you resorted to personal attacks but so be it.

Net2Infinity , I really don't quite understand what point exactly, you are trying to make?

Given the title of the thread, it looks like a question on general principles, albeit brought to attention by an individual case with individual circumstances and an individual judgement.

My comment is that these "border agents" sound a bit like our Customs Officers, and yes they can, and yes it is right and proper that they should have unfettered rights of search and seizure................

And I can assure you, that in the case of that particular sleazeball, in this country they would have double rubber gloved and given him an intensive anal examination................probably in triplicate :eek: ................... it is a terrible thing when a man actually feels proud of paying his taxation?

You cannot complain about the law enforcement agencies not protecting society in general and children in particular if you then want to change your constitution and/or legal system into a pervert's charter.

If these law enforcement officers did not have such powers the whole anti terrorist "war" would just collapse.

From the little, and possibly inaccurate data that I have read so far, I believe that the law enforcement agencies involved should be commended for their actions, efficiency and dilligence.

I have my own views on kiddie pr0n merchants............. unfortunately these are mostly illegal

That is the REAL ISSUE that I see being raised here. :eek:

As in my previous post my point is ......

"I believe you were debating based on the contents of the article and I was referring to the facts from the actual court proceeding. Perhaps this is where the confusion has arisen. I have no doubt of your vast legal knowledge as I was just merely informing others of the actual facts of the case."


My point was that the article makes it sound like they took his laptop from him and ran Encase to figure out what he was doing. As the actual court documents indicate, the accused turned the laptop on for the border agents and he merely looked at the browser history.

My original point before all the flames started was that that article was written by some left wing group and that was the point and fact stated in my original post. I am not a law scholar, nor do I claim to be .... but I am willing to give up some freedoms for the greater good. However, the article was based on someones political agenda and not the actual facts of the case. My intent was to merely provide additional details so that everyone could make an informed decision.

I appreciate your candor Nihil, as its better to ask questions seeking clarification then it is to merely flame. I still don't see what I said that was out of line to begin with. If you could point that out to me I would be most appreciative.

Hey, Net2Infinity please do not misunderstand me....................

Quote:

---

I still don't see what I said that was out of line to begin with. If you could point that out to me I would be most appreciative.

---

I have no idea...............I just tried to explain the UK/EU angle, whereas this is a USA/Canada situation.

What I will say is that the underlying issue is the question of authority granted to our law enforcers throughout the World.



:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by brokencrow
First, that Romm dude should get on the straight path and quit "diddling" while he's on the net.

Second, he should've cleared his internet cache and customs wouldn't have discovered child porn sites in Romm's Internet history list in the first place.

Third, can you spell K-n-o-p-p-i-x?

---

Hey Crow, I'm gonna dissect your post in case some less experienced members read it and make some false assumptions based on it. No worries, aight?

First - If he should "quit 'diddling'" or not is irrelevant to the point of this thread. But you're right.

Second - By clearing his cache, I know what you meant to say was "Clear the cache, delete partial and old files, and wipe/overwrite the unused disk space on all partitions".
(However, even that won't stop EnCase ((or any other forensic tool worth its salt)), if you have data in the slack space of the disk sectors...it may take a WHOLE lot of work to put together enough evidence from the slack to reproduce one image...but it's worth it, for the conviction.)

Third - Amen brother. The best way to leave no hard-disk-evidence is to not use the hard-disk. :evilgrin:

For those users who think that by "clearing the cache" all evidence of your (mis-)deeds is removed, you are sorely mistaken. CIS has nothing on a good forensic computer analyst with the right tools.

maybe we should all use RAMs instead of hdd...

scenario:
oh god hes coming to search my laptop!!! (flip open the case, take that laptop out unplug the batt put the batt in and put the laptop back to the case) whew close call!

Quote:

---

have no doubt of your vast legal knowledge

---

Ha! ... Yes, I have studied some areas of law, but am no expert. The law is fluid, ever changing, and way too complex for many attorneys never mind the average person. I was merely trying to ( maybe badly ) explain for the average person areas which I saw from what was posted, without going into specifics, trying to give a basic understanding of areas which could be looked at.
I try not to delve too far into court cases such as this, because I don't want to give defense attorneys ideas for further appeals.

Quote:

---

I still don't see what I said that was out of line to begin with. If you could point that out to me I would be most appreciative.

---

perhaps it was the wine, or what was behind the scene, in the AO point assignment

Quote:

---

He made an extremely uneducated comment

---

Nuff said on that, lets leave it behind us now.

After reading the suppled .pdf of the court's decision, it is clear that the author of the article misconstrued entirely what this case meant. It looked at some other areas as well, but I will stick with what seems to be the main topic here: can border agents search your laptop.

This case did not address whether border agents could search a laptop, but rather whether the defendant should have been subject to the border search laws because he was never admitted into the other country, but turned away.

The intrusiveness of the search was not addressed as it was not raised initially .....

Quote:

---

If defense or prosecution does not bring out a topic of discussion during arguments in the initial proceedings, the court may not consider any arguments relating, but only those brought out initially.

---

Seems this occurred here.

I hope this helps clear things up.

Hmmmm,

Quote:

---

This case did not address whether border agents could search a laptop, but rather whether the defendant should have been subject to the border search laws because he was never admitted into the other country, but turned away.

---

That is a weird one, surely you search persons before you let them in? ..............You only turn them away once you have made a decision not to admit them, and this decision could well be based on what was found during a search?

If there is a single crime, such as smuggling "illegal substances" (not drugs, weapons or explosives) it is generally the case that the person is returned to their point of egress for trial, assuming a similar degree of criminality exists there.

It is a grey area that seems to be covered by some "gentleman's agreements"?

Otherwise you could be tried and imprisoned for attempting to import illegal substances...........then sent home for more of the same on exportation charges?

Just a thought
:)

I remember what it was like travelling to Detroit via Windsor, either the Ambassador Bridge or the Tunnel, and back then all you needed was your Driver's liscense, but the thing I am trying to say, was as I remember it, when going to the States, you were passed through, unless of course they had prior information, the same was true for American visitors coming to Windsor.

The only time I saw Canada Customs (now Revenue and Excise) inspect vehicles was for returnees, on the lookout for tax evasion stuff, bringing goods back across without paying duties.(you made sure to get the new tires installed on the American side and drove through some mud before coming home type stuff):p

But now with the rules having been changed, people are being asked to open luggage prior to entry, wether your returning or visiting.The Homeland Security rules have made this happen.

They asked this gentleman to open his laptop, he could have refused,which with today's ever present neurosis's, would have lebeled him with something to hide? so open it or turn around and go back...He gave his consent, and through their search they discovered other problems, and rightly refused him entry in to Canada and promptly told the US authorities. He had the choice, but because of his "stupidity" had left incriminating evidence on his PC, shite happens...

For every 10 people who cross the border they don't stop, some are going to get through, he just happened to be number 11 that day.

Do I think it's right..no, but what is the option for the traveller...turn around and go home? stuck between a rock and a hard place, besides if he hadn't done anything illegal, nothing would have happened, a lot of the border inspections are done at random or (they deny it, but racial profiling does happen) through intelligence, someday's they get lucky and other day's the guy smuggling 20 cartons of smokes gets through, or magic mushrooms... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by IKnowNot

After reading the suppled .pdf of the court's decision, it is clear that the author of the article misconstrued entirely what this case meant. It looked at some other areas as well, but I will

---

That was the point that I was trying to make from the beginning.

I would have stated that I was not the only person who uses the computer and anything found on that computer even though it is in my possession might have not been veiwed by me. Anyways whos to say that eveidence wasnt placed there by AKA Hackers. The true issue is that there are sick sites up there with child porn on it. Attack the porn site. (Take away the alcohal from the drunk and he will sober up). So yes this guy is sick and he should be shot. But any evidence found by any country should not be submissable in a United States court without proper posedure (warrent), just because hes a x con doesnt constitute probable cause. They did the right thing by sending him back, but going into such a deap scan to find anything they can on this guy is Bull. Hey I did drugs as a kid but does that make me a drug addict now? Hell no (for those of you who said yes).


But hear what I have to say now if you didnt retain what I wrote above. If you dont want to get in trouble for something illegal then dont do it... We all get caught in the end.

And still everybody manages to oversee the importance of this ruling... where's hogfly when you need him :/

Quote:

---

And still everybody manages to oversee the importance of this ruling...

---

You mean it actually has one?...................cases where the defendant submits a de facto admission of guilt are not good ones to attempt to argue points of law.

A more interesting situation would be if the defendant entered a not guilty plea?.................the computer had been used to access kiddie pr0n sites and kiddie pron materials had been downloaded.

Supposing it was second user, or others had access to it ..................................?

"Possession in a usable form" would be an important consideration under UK law, and I doubt if we would have prosecuted on the trace evidence alone. However , the perp would now be a marked man and would be monitored until he was caught in the act................ which, by his own admission, would not have been long?

That said, I wonder if the real question was ever raised?......................a customs official immediately looks at the internet browser log?................why?..............

Does anyone else smell an element of "stage management" or "choreography" here?

Had I been on the defence team, I would not have been inclined to go for the "border search" rules, as I think that those are trivial............

I would have asked where the intelligence came from, and what communications had taken place between the US and Canadian enforcement agencies................ the sort of "entrapment" *** "conspiracy" approach?

Errrrrrrrrrr.............. "let's ship prisoners from banana republic to banana republic..........because it isn't legal here"

IMHO that is the thin end of a rather nasty wedge :(

If there really is cause for concern, I would suggest that it lies in that area?

Just a few thoughts :)

Here's why this ruling is important:

A border agent is a law officer, and thus bound by federal search and seizure guidelines. Those guidelines center around the Fourth Amendment:

Quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

In practical terms, this means that law officers always need a warrant except in some cases, of which this one is important here: where consent is given by the suspect, a search warrant is not needed. So far, so good in this case: Romm gave his permission to search the laptop, and the law officers did so. Nothing wrong with that, everything by the book.

The importance of this case, though, is in this part of the ruling:

"Under the border search exception, the government may conduct routine searches of persons entering the United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. [...] passengers deplaning from an international flight are subject to routine border searches."

That goes completely against the DoJ Search and Seizure guidelines: the court here found that Fourth Amendment rights do not apply to citizens entering this country - and that's what makes this case important. The Border Search guidelines have been around since a while after 9/11, but never have they been tested like this. Now we know what they stand for: kiss your Fourth Amendment rights goodbye at the border :)

I know that this goes back a few days to some of the original postings but you may be interested to find out about a law over here in the UK.

It has been mentioned that if you have encryption that you may have a means of stopping people accessing your private data. This is not true over here.

If a customs or police officer retains a computer for investigation and they find encryptred content on the computer the owner must (I emphasise MUST) provide the encryption/decryption key when asked otherwise they receive an immediate two year prison sentence on top of anything else that you may be charged with.

Now, of course, you may think that this is a fair trade-off if you are carrying illegal content but when you consider that over here a hacker will get less than two years as standard and a number of child porn offenders will get a suspended sentence it doesn't seem like much of a deal.

Actually Neg, this case did not decide that at all, but relied on United States v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2002) for that portion of the decision ( which relied on other decisions. )

People keep speaking about consent given, but I do not see how it is relevant in this case ( at least as far as U.S. Law is concerned ).
I did not see it brought up in arguments in the appeal, nor do I believe it had any relevance here.

From the .pdf

Quote:

---

The agents told Romm they needed to search
his laptop for illegal images, and could arrange for the examination
to be completed that night. Romm agreed.

---

If this was deemed to give them consent the defense would never have claimed an illegal search, or would have been arguing the consent was coerced in some way. That was not the case, at least not in the appeal. The search was found valid as an exception to the warrant requirement, i.e., a border search.

We can only guess what would have happened if he had not turned the laptop on in Canada??

Quote:

---

IKnowNot
People keep speaking about consent given, but I do not see how it is relevant in this case ( at least as far as U.S. Law is concerned ).
I did not see it brought up in arguments in the appeal, nor do I believe it had any relevance here.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by me two pages ago
Whether he gave consent or not is not what's important in this case, because it doesn't matter whether or not he did (that's what the case is about)

---

...

Yes, sorry Neg if it seemed I was including you in the second part ... you are ( were ) correct, but it was mentioned again after your post on that.

Where is Mrs |ce on this discussion? I'd love to hear her thoughts.