Interview with Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) on gov't seizures of laptops, cellphones, Blackberries

[Better Believe It]

Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez
January 15, 2011

For those who regularly write and read about civil liberties abuses, it's sometimes easy to lose perspective about just how extreme and outrageous certain erosions are. One becomes inured to them, and even severe incursions start to seem ordinary. Such was the case, at least for me, with Homeland Security's practice of detaining American citizens upon their re-entry into the country, and as part of that detention, literally seizing their electronic products -- laptops, cellphones, Blackberries and the like -- copying and storing the data, and keeping that property for months on end, sometimes never returning it. Worse, all of this is done not only without a warrant, probable cause or any oversight, but even without reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in any crime. It's completely standard-less, arbitrary, and unconstrained. There's no law authorizing this power nor any judicial or Congressional body overseeing or regulating what DHS is doing. And the citizens to whom this is done have no recourse -- not even to have their property returned to them.

When you really think about it, it's simply inconceivable that the U.S. Government gets away with doing this. Seizing someone's laptop, digging through it, recording it all, storing the data somewhere, and then distributing it to various agencies is about the most invasive, privacy-destroying measure imaginable. A laptop and its equivalents reveal whom you talk to, what you say, what you read, what you write, what you view, what you think, and virtually everything else about your life. It can -- and often does -- contain not only the most private and intimate information about you, but also information which the government is legally barred from accessing (attorney/client or clergy/penitent communications, private medical and psychiatric information and the like). But these border seizures result in all of that being limitlessly invaded. This is infinitely more invasive than the TSA patdowns that caused so much controversy just two months ago. What kind of society allows government agents -- without any cause -- to seize all of that whenever they want, without limits on whom they can do this to, what they access, how they can use it: even without anyone knowing what they're doing?

.... even in the wake of increasing complaints, Congress has done nothing to curb these abuses or even regulate them. But at least one member of the House, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat, is attempting to do something. Rep. Sanchez has introduced a very modest bill -- H.R. 216 -- requiring Homeland Security to issue rules governing these searches and seizures so that they are no longer able to operate completely in the dark and without standards. The bill would also impose some reporting requirements on DHS (Section 4); provide some very modest rights to those subjected to these seizures as well as some minor procedural limits on DHS agents (Sec. 2); and would compel "a civil liberties impact assessment of the rule, as prepared by the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security" (Sec. 2(b)(9)).

One point Rep. Sanchez emphasized is that even if she wanted a stronger bill (and it seems clear she does), the chance of enacting it in the GOP House is very small. After all, the Democratic Congress did nothing about this problem. But that underscores one amazing point: the right-wing of the Republican Party and its "Tea Party" faction endlessly tout their devotion to limited federal government powers, individual rights, property rights, and the Constitution. If they were even minimally genuine in those claims, few things would offend and anger them more than federal agents singling out and detaining whichever citizens they want, and then taking their property, digging through and recording their most personal and private data -- all without any oversight or probable cause. Yet with very few exceptions (a few groups on the Right, including religious conservatives, opposed some excesses of the Patriot Act, while the small libertarian faction of the GOP oppose many of these abuses), they seem indifferent to, even supportive of, the very policies that most violently injure their ostensible principles.

Read the full article and listen to Greenwald's interview with Congresswoman Sanchez at:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[DeSwiss]

1. I don't know why......

...anyone would find this extraordinary. Such behavior is S.O.P. of any half-assed Police State. And that's exactly what we've got now. It happened the second that the Patriot Act was passed and habeas corpus was flushed down the toilet. It happened when we allowed people to be renditioned in the dark of night. It happened when we sat on our asses and remained silent while illegal and immoral killings were prosecuted in our name. It happened when the so-called "leader of the free world" committed war crimes and atrocities and nothing was done about because we didn't "want to look back."

We. No. Longer. Live. In. A. Free. Society. So we can't complain. We can't bitch about it. This is the result of what we do.

- I hope that was clear......

K&R

[RegieRocker]

2. Were they terrorists or conspiring terrorism?

[Luminous Animal]

5. There are no charges against them.

[hlthe2b]

13. No matter how many violations of our rights... many believe as you

that the average American has nothing to worry about if they aren't in some terrorism group. This is why these attacks on our freedoms continue to escalate. sigh...

:banghead:

[RegieRocker]

15. you haven't read any of my posts have you?

The average American has much to worry about, past, present and future.

[hlthe2b]

16. just that one...

glad you corrected my misunderstanding of your point.

[Richard Steele]

14. Damn right. nm

[Edweird]

3. Security can be a pain in the ass,

but you can protect yourself and your privacy if you are willing to put the effort into it. Now that people are aware of this, there's no reason not to take the necessary steps.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Actually, our constitution affirms our right to privacy. We shouldn't have to do anything

to protect ourselves from our government.

[Edweird]

7. Your consitutional rights don't apply at border crossings.

I suppose it's worth mentioning also that the US constitution doesn't mean diddly any place outside the US. International border crossings are serious business despite what some here would have you believe.

[Matariki]

10. It seems that the constitution doesn't apply in more and more places.

And that 'giving up your rights is implicit' in an increasing number of situations.

And there will always be apologists and supporters for each increase in the erosion of our rights.

[Edweird]

11. It's true that there is a very real attack on our freedoms.

It makes me angry as well. I fight it every chance I get but you can only do so much as one person. One place I'm not going to fight is at an international border. I will subvert and nullify their attempts to collect data, but I'm not going to cause a stink.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Have you ever been at an international border? Our side has our agents representing our jurisdiction

and thus, subject to our laws.

[Edweird]

25. Yes, I have been through international border crossings.

Our 'agents' represent our side, but I would love to see you assert your 4th amendment rights at the US border.

[Luminous Animal]

17. U.S. citizens. U.S. soil. U.S. law. And, fyi, the Constitution makes no distiction between...

citizens and humans.

[Edweird]

26. The guys that wrote the constitution also wrote the border exception.

[toddaa]

6. The simple solution: Strong Encryption

The erosion of the 4th Amendment can only be stopped by citizens proper use of strong encryption on all electronic devices with sensitive data. More importantly, use of hardware or software which does not provide source code should be avoided in favor of open source alternatives. Apple, IBM, and Microsoft do not care about your 4th Amendment rights.

[Edweird]

8. That cartoon does have a relevant point:

if your drive is encrypted, or has encrypted volumes, they will want to know what's on there and why it's encrypted. It's blatant defiance of their 'authority' and could be a much bigger hassle than it's worth. Encryption has it's purpose, but international border crossing ain't it.

[toddaa]

9. Encryption is a defiance of "authority"?

Encryption is not a crime. The government has tried to make it so, but they lost that case.

[Edweird]

12. That was 'tongue-in-cheek',

but the fact remains that everything crossing the border is subject to inspection. Encryption thwarts inspection and does so in a blatant way. If your desire is cross the border with your privacy intact AND not possibly create any hassles for yourself, I would recommend another method. Encrypt your data and upload it to a file sharing host. It accessible universally, encrypted and won't get you hung up at the border.

[Better Believe It]

19. But they can still confiscate your computer and return whenever the hell they feel like it, or not.

[Edweird]

20. They can. The point is to avoid all that. If you can't avoid it, mitigate your loss.

If you show up with a laptop that has an operating system and not much else, what are they going to do? What is there to seize? All of your data is secured elsewhere. In the event they steal your laptop - they would be taking it for no legitimate reason - your data is accessible. Using truecrypt, in my not-so-humble opinion puts you at greater risk since truecrypt leaves indicators of it's presence AND your data is on that drive. So, while they can't get to it, they can seize your computer and now YOU can't get to it either.

[Better Believe It]

21. Why bother to even take your laptop with you for travel if it can't be used?

You might use it to play games, but it is of no practical use if your programs and files are left behind when you travel.

That's especially true for political activists who need a functioning computer with their files when they leave home to travel.

And when shouldn't have to worry about our computers, cell phones and other devices being confiscated by the government!

That's my point.

[Edweird]

22. No one is saying you can't use it - just clean up before you return.

They aren't checking you leaving - it's only on your return. Take your files with you. DO what you have to do. Upload whatever you want to keep. Wipe EVERYTHING before returning. Restore at home/office. Download files from host.

Pain in the ass? Yes.
But it's also secure and you won't lose your data.

[Better Believe It]

23. We are so lucky to be living in such a free and democratic nation.

[Edweird]

24. To be fair, change for the worse is technically 'change'. Yes, it sucks how things are going.

The onus is on you to protect yourself.

These steps are just good personal security - you are also prepared for a typical laptop theft. If some non-government thug takes off with your computer, then what? Same problem, same solution. Your ID and data are safe.
Consider using a pendrive/sd card to run the OS from - can be done with Linux and (if your kung-fu is strong) XP. Nothing will be on the hard drive at any time - it isn't being used.

I'm a 'security nazi'.