• news
  • SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 20 2008 10:00 AM

Seriously, Who Wants to Travel to the United States?

Submitted by DevilsReject

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: Homeland Security, Airport Security, Terrorism

The United States Department of Homeland Security scares the hell out of me. What is really bad is I am a United States citizen and it scares the hell out of me. It really has to be scary to someone that isn't a citizen of the United States.

Think of this scenario. You fly back into the United States after visiting some friends in Europe. A Homeland Security Officer, specifically a Transportation Security Agent hands you a pair of pliers and tells you to remove your nipple ring.

The Transportation Security Administration said Friday its officers at a Texas airport appear to have properly followed procedures when they allegedly forced a woman to remove her nipple rings -- one with pliers -- but acknowledged the procedures should be changed.



Congratulations TSA. You're brilliant. Forcing someone to remove a piercing, in a rather personal spot, with pliers kind of does scream that procedures should be changed. If there were any damn procedures in the first place and they aren't just running this security thing by the seat of their pants.

That's old news. Now onto the new news. This is the type of thing where I strongly believe that any government official should have at least a general knowledge of current technology.

Back in April of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court decided that searching laptops without reason is well within the law, and does not violate any Fourth Amendment Rights.

So wait. Now I am confused. The Ninth Circuit says that TSA Agents can search my papers, effects, laptops, iPods, iPhones and other electronic devices without probable cause, but the Fourth Amendment says that they cannot. Unless the probable cause is "Everyone is a Terrorist". Then it kind of makes sense.

The judges noted that precedent already allows searches of 1) briefcases and luggage, 2) a purse, wallet, or pocket, 3) papers found in pockets, and 4) pictures, films, and other graphic material. In fact, the Supreme Court allows border agents wide latitude, only drawing the line at searching the "alimentary canal" of a suspect without reasonable suspicion (seriously).



Well, at least they have to have reasonable suspicion to check my large intestines, that is comforting.

Don't worry though! Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) introduced a new bill to help with this! Well, not so much help, but at least you will get a receipt for the expensive piece of electronic equipment that the TSA Agent, who makes just more than minimum wage, is illegally seizing from you.

(5) A requirement that an individual subjected to a border security search of an electronic device shall receive a receipt for such device if such device is removed from the possession of such individual.



Basically, what Rep Sanchez is trying to do is bring more accountability to the TSA and Homeland Security. She is trying to create paper trails so we can figure out what they are doing.

Sanchez's bill would bring more routine to the search process. The bill requires the government to draft additional rules regarding information security, the number of days a device can be retained, receipts that must be issued when devices are taken, ways to report abuses, and it requires the completion of both a privacy impact study and a civil liberties impact study. Travelers would also have the explicit right to watch as the search is conducted.



Sanchez also wants data about the searches, which would have to be turned over to Congress once per quarter. Specifically, she wants to know how many searches are being done, where they take place, and the race and nationality of those being searched.



So what does all this boil down to? The TSA can illegally (in my opinion) search your laptops, iPods, iPhones and Blackberries. They can also seize these devices if they deem it necessary. Rather than fix this problem, they are trying to pass legislation in order to make the TSA accountable for the electronic devices they are seizing. It seems like legislation we really shouldn't need in the first place.

Here is an idea. Let's not treat every single person that is entering the United States as a potential terrorist. Let's not presume that every single person entering the United States is guilty rather than innocent.

I cannot even begin to imagine what this is doing for business travel in the United States. What practical business person would want to travel to the United States and have their legitimate business files searched and possibly their laptop seized? For that matter, who would want to leisurely travel to the United States and suffer the same outcome? This has to be affecting our business and tourism trade.

What makes this even worse is that most terrorists probably know more technologically than what the TSA or Homeland Security is giving them credit for. It leads me to believe that the TSA Agents are searching for someone who is wearing a shirt that says "I R A TEAROREST!".

I would have to go ahead and assume that most terrorists know there are multiple ways around specifically having information stored to the hard drive of an electronic device. Things like peer-to-peer connections, online repositories and this internet thing, can walk right around security in an airport or at a border. This is the point where technology is an important knowledge to have if you are a public official.

Something needs to be changed. The system we are currently dealing with is greatly flawed. These issues are obviously big reasons not to visit the United States for business or for pleasure. With our economy the way it is now, we shouldn't be doing anything that will prevent money from flowing into our country.

I am tired, as a citizen of the United States, of being afraid to leave the country and return, even though I have done nothing wrong. I don't deserve to have my personal items seized on behalf of National Security.

We need to have officials in charge of things like the Security of the Nation, that are educated in technology so that processes like this can be eliminated or streamlined to make more sense. Accountability of the TSA and Homeland Security is a good idea on paper and in legislation, but in application we are making them accountable for something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

DevilsReject just chooses not to leave the country anymore and sits in his basement with his 77 ferrets. Alone.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
TAFKASP

TAFKASP

Oakland, CA
June 2003

SEP 21, 2008 11:04 AM

"I have had it with these motherfucking laptops on this motherfucking plane!"

zoom image

Lemonkid

Lemonkid

Canada
May 2003

SEP 21, 2008 11:05 AM

velvet_petal said:
Don't other countries do this as well? Just asking because I'm curious.

I travel internationally for business on a semi-regular basis. I thought it was a given that you had to show your laptops and that there was always the small risk that it could be seized (making it wise to always back-up before traveling, not store all of your proprietary info, and not store anything which might violate the laws of the country your are entering.)



Last time I went to France they looked at my passport for 5 seconds, looked at me, and let me through.

I've had to drop my pants and have my crotch fondled by TSA in the San Francisco airport without any explanation given. (I maintain it's because I'm cute)

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

SEP 21, 2008 11:20 AM

I don't see anything wrong with introducing legislation to require more transparency, given that Sanchez is probably going to have very little luck changing Homeland Security practices by herself, especially if anyone's arguing that the courts have legitimized those practices. I don't think her legislation should be derided as a worthless move at all; getting more info via making the process more transparent and more documented and then looking at the data gathered from that is what will help anyone build a case for changing the practices.

TAFKASP

TAFKASP

Oakland, CA
June 2003

SEP 21, 2008 11:26 AM

Lemonkid said:
I've had to drop my pants and have my crotch fondled by TSA in the San Francisco airport without any explanation given. (I maintain it's because I'm cute)



man, fuck that!

the terrorists have fucking won.

game over, America.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Boston, MA
March 2004

SEP 21, 2008 12:33 PM

This old new for anyone who regularly reads Schneier on Security. Below are several posts from his blog on this topic and disk encryption. Most posts by Bruce Schneier have links to the original story and other relevant sites.

U.S. Government Policy for Seizing Laptops at Borders, August 1, 2008
Crossing Borders with Laptops and PDAs, May 16, 2008
Microsoft Has Developed Windows Forensic Analysis Tool for Police, April 30, 2008 [Another reason why Microsoft sucks.]
U.S. Customs Seizing Laptops, February 12, 2008

Disk Encryption
Encrypting Disks, July 4, 2008
How to Secure Your Computer, Disks, and Portable Drives, December 4, 2007

Laptop Seizures in Sudan, September 13, 2006 [Could this have been our inspiration? The freedom loving Sudanese.]

From my latest blog post: this is lovely. The NSA Teams Up with the Chinese Government to Limit Internet Anonymity. It is always a good idea to work with the freedom loving Chinese Government - thugs and goons. More here - U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity.

Incompetence at the Border, March 22, 2007
Laptop with Trusted Traveler Identities Stolen, August 5, 2008

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 21, 2008 05:48 PM

Squire said:

mingol said:
My posts were in response to what I took to be your blanket assertion that since flying is a 'privilege' and not a Constitutionally protected right, the Fourth Amendment need not apply to air travellers. But if that isn't what you were trying to say - and it now appears that it was not - then I don't think we have very much left to disagree about.



Flying is a privilege and not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. You give up some, if not most, of your rights under the Fourth Amendment when you invoke that privilege the same way you give up some, but fewer, rights when you drive a car. The key question in deciding whether a search is reasonable, is whether said search contravenes what our society concludes is an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." We have a "high" expectation of privacy regarding our homes. Thus, it is kinda hard for the government to get in there: it requires a warrant or facts to which one of the Fourth Amendment's "narrowly tailored exceptions" apply. This expectation of privacy diminishes when we take advantage of a privilege like driving a car or flying on a plane. These activities are already highly regulated by the government and the stakes are a bit higher than they are on your porch.

By the way, this whole discussion assumes that the entity doing the searching before you fly is a government agency. Private companies can search whatever the hell they want as a condition of doing business with them.



Exactly which rights do i give up when i drive a car? As compared to flying on a plane where i pretty much give up any and all expectation of privacy

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

SEP 21, 2008 06:11 PM

And yet, thanks to the declining value of the dollar, bargain-hunting European tourists are flocking to America in droves to buy cheap crap from American retail stores.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

SEP 21, 2008 06:20 PM

silversoul7 said:
And yet, thanks to the declining value of the dollar, bargain-hunting European tourists are flocking to America in droves to buy cheap crap from American retail stores.



They need to start buying real estate again. There's ton's o great deals here!

Squire

Squire

I'm lost
November 2003

SEP 21, 2008 06:24 PM

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

mingol said:
My posts were in response to what I took to be your blanket assertion that since flying is a 'privilege' and not a Constitutionally protected right, the Fourth Amendment need not apply to air travellers. But if that isn't what you were trying to say - and it now appears that it was not - then I don't think we have very much left to disagree about.



Flying is a privilege and not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. You give up some, if not most, of your rights under the Fourth Amendment when you invoke that privilege the same way you give up some, but fewer, rights when you drive a car. The key question in deciding whether a search is reasonable, is whether said search contravenes what our society concludes is an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." We have a "high" expectation of privacy regarding our homes. Thus, it is kinda hard for the government to get in there: it requires a warrant or facts to which one of the Fourth Amendment's "narrowly tailored exceptions" apply. This expectation of privacy diminishes when we take advantage of a privilege like driving a car or flying on a plane. These activities are already highly regulated by the government and the stakes are a bit higher than they are on your porch.

By the way, this whole discussion assumes that the entity doing the searching before you fly is a government agency. Private companies can search whatever the hell they want as a condition of doing business with them.



Exactly which rights do i give up when i drive a car? As compared to flying on a plane where i pretty much give up any and all expectation of privacy



No warrant is needed at all. Only probable cause/reasonable suspicion is needed in order for law enforcement to search a car. Again, automobiles are already highly regulated by the government, making it unreasonable for an individual to have a high expectation of privacy in her car. Autombiles also present an inherent exigent circumstance because they can be driven away from law inforcement.

GrayRains

GrayRains

Twin Lake, MI
January 2008

SEP 21, 2008 06:32 PM

How utterly bizarre. I remember when I shipped out for Basic Training, all 3 times I was asked to step aside to be searched, despite the large bundle of paperwork that I had that basically said "the person with this paperwork is going to be a soldier." I figured it was since that I was 6'6 tall I must have looked scary to the average guy working the lines. This was inside the USA, then after I leave Basic, it seems like no matter where I fly off to, I'm given an almost royal treatment. Accidently bring a knife in a carry-on, they provide someone to escort me to get it stashed and back in line quickly without jack for security checks, or even just getting a wave through once in awhile or being stepped around the scanners.

Even when I fly back into the USA from say the UK or Germany I seldom deal with much. I can only imagine what my German ex-girlfriend had to deal with when she came here to see me. How long does it take for foreigners who come to the USA? What the devil do they have to put up with?

ardour

ardour

Ottawa, ON
March 2006

SEP 21, 2008 06:33 PM

DevilsReject said:
Customs and TSA are a blur, much like all of Homeland Security, which in my opinion seems horribly organized and grossly inefficient.



Do you mean they're practically the same thing? Because while I'm no expert on how it works in the US, it doesn't make much sense to me. It certainly isn't like this in Canada, and as I understand we have a very similar system. Canadian Customs and Canada's version of the TSA are very different things with very different functions.

TSA would be screeners they operate in all US airports. Their duty is to stop dangerous items from getting on a plane. So flights leaving the US or within the US. US Customs officers deal with people entering the country (by land, sea, air, whatever) trying to stop smuggling and threats to national security.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, I just see a big difference between the two jobs. If TSA officers are allowed to check out what's on someone's laptop then that is VERY alarming.

As an aside, I work around US customs because of US pre-clearance, and am not going to go into personal anicdote on a public forum as it relates to my work.

That said, none of these stories surprise me, and I have avoided going to the US since 9/11, choosing to go to other countries instead. Just not worth the hassle.

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 21, 2008 06:41 PM

Squire said:

DevilsReject said:

Squire said:

mingol said:
My posts were in response to what I took to be your blanket assertion that since flying is a 'privilege' and not a Constitutionally protected right, the Fourth Amendment need not apply to air travellers. But if that isn't what you were trying to say - and it now appears that it was not - then I don't think we have very much left to disagree about.



Flying is a privilege and not a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. You give up some, if not most, of your rights under the Fourth Amendment when you invoke that privilege the same way you give up some, but fewer, rights when you drive a car. The key question in deciding whether a search is reasonable, is whether said search contravenes what our society concludes is an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." We have a "high" expectation of privacy regarding our homes. Thus, it is kinda hard for the government to get in there: it requires a warrant or facts to which one of the Fourth Amendment's "narrowly tailored exceptions" apply. This expectation of privacy diminishes when we take advantage of a privilege like driving a car or flying on a plane. These activities are already highly regulated by the government and the stakes are a bit higher than they are on your porch.

By the way, this whole discussion assumes that the entity doing the searching before you fly is a government agency. Private companies can search whatever the hell they want as a condition of doing business with them.



Exactly which rights do i give up when i drive a car? As compared to flying on a plane where i pretty much give up any and all expectation of privacy



No warrant is needed at all. Only probable cause/reasonable suspicion is needed in order for law enforcement to search a car. Again, automobiles are already highly regulated by the government, making it unreasonable for an individual to have a high expectation of privacy in her car. Autombiles also present an inherent exigent circumstance because they can be driven away from law inforcement.



They only need probable cause and reasonable suspicion to search a home too.

If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.

When i walk through an airport, at no point am i asked for consent, consent is just assumed and i have no other choice but to give them consent. Explain to me how that is constitutional?

ardour

ardour

Ottawa, ON
March 2006

SEP 21, 2008 06:55 PM

DevilsReject said:
When i walk through an airport, at no point am i asked for consent, consent is just assumed and i have no other choice but to give them consent. Explain to me how that is constitutional?



I know the screeners here have to technically ask everyone before they search a bag. If you say no, they won't search your bag, but you're not going to be allowed on the plane, either.

I think the idea is that it might be constitutional, because no one is forcing you to fly.

Of course in reality that's ridiculous, most people need to fly sometimes. Maybe if people could fly when the constituation was written things would be different. It's not the only thing I can think of...

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 21, 2008 07:36 PM

ardour said:

DevilsReject said:
Customs and TSA are a blur, much like all of Homeland Security, which in my opinion seems horribly organized and grossly inefficient.



Do you mean they're practically the same thing? Because while I'm no expert on how it works in the US, it doesn't make much sense to me. It certainly isn't like this in Canada, and as I understand we have a very similar system. Canadian Customs and Canada's version of the TSA are very different things with very different functions.



I meant that more from a reader's standpoint. Many people falsely accuse the TSA of seizing a laptop while in fact it's a Border Agent.

In the United States, the TSA and Border Control both fall under Homeland Security and Homeland Security has a seat on the president's cabinet.

While United States Customs and the TSA are different, from everything i have read, the TSA does have the right to seize and search your laptop if given probable cause to do so since they are draped under DHS.

TSA would be screeners they operate in all US airports. Their duty is to stop dangerous items from getting on a plane. So flights leaving the US or within the US. US Customs officers deal with people entering the country (by land, sea, air, whatever) trying to stop smuggling and threats to national security.



I personally understand the difference, but reading blogs and other such things gives me the idea that a lot of people don't. So when someone screams "The TSA seized my laptop" you have to read further into it and realize that it was in fact a Border Agent that seized their laptop.

But articles like this blur it. "U.S. Agent". Agent is a rather non-specific term, which could and very might well include TSA agents since they all fall under DHS.

Articles Things like this kind of lead me to believe that training is lacking on both parts.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, I just see a big difference between the two jobs. If TSA officers are allowed to check out what's on someone's laptop then that is VERY alarming.



I didn't think you were being a jerk about it. Like i said, when reading about it, it is hard to determine whether the writer or blogger is speaking of the TSA or customs, but from everything i have read, given probably cause, the TSA does have the right to seize a laptop.

GrayRains

GrayRains

Twin Lake, MI
January 2008

SEP 21, 2008 07:46 PM

DevilsReject said:
If i get pulled over, and the officer asks for consent to search my automobile, i have a constitutional right to deny the search. Most people just assume they have to give consent. If i choose not to give consent, and the officer still wants to search my vehicle he has to obtain a warrant. At that point the warrant has to be obtained by legally specifying why he wants the warrant. If he has no good reason other than "I want to" then he loses the ability to search your vehicle.



Hold on, isn't it true that you never ever completely own your car 100%? That's why you pay fees for registration and all that, because the government has a stake in the ownership of your car, and as such, can search your vehicle with due cause?

Just asking because I want to know more about that topic.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews