Outrageous Privacy Violations
Joan F (MI)
Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez
By Glenn Greenwald
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?
This Homeland Security conduct has finally received some long-overdue
attention over the past several months as a result of people associated with
WikiLeaks or Bradley Manning being subjected to it. In July, Jacob
Appelbaum, a WikiLeaks volunteer, was detained for hours at Newark Airport,
had his laptop and cellphones seized (the cellphones still have not been
returned), and was told that the same thing would happen to him every time
he tried to re-enter the country; last week, it indeed occurred again when
he arrived in Seattle after a trip to Iceland, only this time he was afraid
to travel with a laptop or cellphone and they were thus unable to seize them
(they did seize his memory sticks, onto which he had saved a copy of the
Bill of Rights). The same thing happened to 23-year-old American David
House after he visited Bradley Manning in the Quantico brig and worked for
Manning's legal defense fund: in November, House returned to the U.S. from
a vacation in Mexico with his girlfriend and her family, was detained, and
had his laptop and memory sticks seized (they were returned only after he
retained the ACLU of Massachusetts to demand their return).
But this is happening to far more than people associated with WikiLeaks. As
a result of writing about this, I've spoken with several writers,
filmmakers, and activists who are critics of the government and who have
been subjected to similar seizures -- some every time they re-enter the
country. In September, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of these suspicionless searches; one of the plaintiffs on
whose behalf they sued is Pascal Abidor, a 26-year-old dual French-American
citizen who had his laptop seized at the border when returning to the U.S.
last year:
Abidor was traveling from Montreal to New York on an Amtrak train in May
when he had his laptop searched and confiscated by Custom and Border Patrol
officers. Abidor, an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student, was questioned,
handcuffed, taken off the train and kept in a holding cell for several hours
before being released without charge. When his laptop was returned 11 days
later, there was evidence that many of his personal files, including
research, photos and chats with his girlfriend, had been searched.
A FOIA request from the ACLU revealed that in the 18-month period beginning
October 1, 2008, more than 6,600 people -- roughly half of whom are American
citizens -- were subjected to electronic device searches at the border by
DHS, all without a search warrant. But the willingness of courts to act is
unclear at best. The judiciary, with a few exceptions, has been shamelessly
deferential in the post-9/11 era to even the most egregious assertions of
Executive Branch power in the name of security. Combine that with the
stunning ignorance of technology on the part of many judges -- many of whom
have been on the bench a long time and are insulated by their office from
everyday life -- and it's not hard to envision these practices being
endorsed. Indeed, two appellate courts have thus far held -- reversing the
rulings of lower courts -- that Homeland Security agents do not even need to
show "reasonable suspicion" to search and seize a citizens' electronic
products when re-entering their country. Some lower court judges, however,
continue to rule the practice unconstitutional: see here for one federal
judge's emphatic rejection of the Obama DOJ's arguments as to why such
searches fall outside of the Bill of Rights.
In a July, 2008 Senate hearing, then-Sen. Russ Feingold hosted the
Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which vehemently opposes this
practice, and Feingold said this:
Over the last two years, reports have surfaced that customs agents have
been asking U.S. citizens to turn over their cell phones or give them the
passwords to their laptops. The travelers have been given a choice between
complying with the request or being kept out of their own country. They have
been forced to wait for hours while customs agents reviewed and sometimes
copied the contents of the electronic devices. In some cases, the laptops or
cell phones were confiscated and returned weeks or even months later, with
no explanation.
Back then, this was painted as yet another Bush/Cheney assault on civil
liberties, so one frequently heard denunciations like this from leading
Democrats such as Sen. Pat Leahy: "It may surprise many Americans that
their basic constitutional rights do not exist at our ports of entry even to
protect private information contained on a computer. It concerns me, and I
believe that actions taken under the cover of these decisions have the
potential to turn the Constitution on its head." But now that this practice
has continued -- and seemingly expanded -- under the Obama presidency, few
in Congress seem to care.
Indeed, 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)).
Yesterday, I spoke with Rep. Sanchez about her bill, and the 8-minute
interview can be heard on the player below. I actually anticipated this
interview would be somewhat confrontational because I think this bill --
though well-intentioned -- is woefully inadequate and potentially even
counter-productive. The bill does not in any way curb the central abuse:
Homeland Security's seizure of people's property without any probable cause
or even reasonable suspicion (a bill introduced by then-Sen. Feingold would
have barred all such searches in the absence of reasonable suspicion). Rep.
Sanchez's bill also leaves it up to DHS to promulgate its own rules rather
than having Congress fulfill its oversight duties by imposing rules on the
agency. And worst of all, the bill could be seen as codifying -- granting
the Congressional stamp of approval and thus strengthening -- Homeland
Security's power to conduct these suspicionless seizures.
But the more I listened to her, the more I thought that perhaps this is a
good first step -- at least arguably better than nothing (I'm still
ambivalent on that question). At the very least, this bill would force into
the sunlight information about what DHS is actually doing, perhaps
generating some controversy and enabling more stringent restrictions. It
would provide some formal mechanism for citizens to complain about abuse and
try to have their laptops returned (though, as computer expert Jacob
Appelbaum told me, he would never trust a laptop that had been in the
custody of government agents, as it could easily be fixed, without
detection, to surveil all future use). And it would impose at least some
guidelines against invading attorney/client and other sensitive data (though
without any enforcement mechanism, it'd be less like a requirement and more
like a suggestion that would likely be ignored).
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.
My interview with Rep. Sanchez: at
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/15/laptops/index.html
Bobbie
> Saturday, Jan 15, 2011 06:16 ET
> Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez
> By Glenn Greenwald
>
> My interview with Rep. Sanchez: at
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/15/laptops/index.html
>
Good heavans, that is outrageous, I wonder just how much of that is
going on here that we don't know about.
Is nothing sacred (private)
--
Bobbie
http://www.thingamabobs.co.uk/imagesofcanfordheath8.html
http://www.smudgespatch.co,uk/mygarden6.html
geewhiz
wrote:
>
> read more »
ewe voted for this. what the fuck are ewe complaining about?
geewhiz
> On 15/01/2011 17:22, Joan F (MI) wrote:
>
> > Saturday, Jan 15, 2011 06:16 ET
> > Homeland Security's laptop seizures: Interview with Rep. Sanchez
> > By Glenn Greenwald
>
> > My interview with Rep. Sanchez: at
>
>
> Good heavans, that is outrageous, I wonder just how much of that is
> going on here that we don't know about.
> Is nothing sacred (private)
>
> --
>
> Bobbie
remember: libs like joan VOTED for this. whay are they mad?
Joan F (MI)
any different. Fat chance. The real problem is that the corporate elite
own the politicians, except for a very few.
geewhiz
understand?
ewe obviously are a partisan lunatic idiot. the piece you posted
clearly stated that ewer beloved 111th congress did nothing about it
nor has ewer beloved commie cic. ewe freak libs moaned all the time
about bush's invasion of ewer privacy but have kept ewer pie holes
suspiciously quiet since ewer beloved liberals took control of the
country.
eat shit and choke on it.
JD
On Jan 15, 2:58 pm, "Joan F \(MI\)" <jjf...@removethisameritech.net>
wrote:
Don
geewhiz,
Come on now they got an approval rating of 11%. I mean what more can
you aks (I did that on purpose)
Don
Joan F (MI)
a few people there who I like and support but not nearly enough of them to
get anything really good accomplished. You saw what happened to Russ
Feingold's bill, and now he is gone. I'm complaining because the whole
system is corrupt, if you are one of the elites you can get away with
anything. If you are just some poor slob you can get robbed or imprisoned
for nothing. You're not safe because I don't for a minute believe you are
any kind of elite.
The Tea Partier have every right to be angry, but they are focusing their
anger in the wrong direction. The politicians are just tools and the
Republicans are just a bit worse than the Dems.
seymore
can't change.
how can the Tea Party be focusing in the wrong direction? Their ENTIRE
PLATFORM is to rein in government to its constitutional LIMITS!
ewe are a HACK, joan! consider ewer enduring words that ewe'd pay more
in taxes to fix potholes but bought the highest MPG car ewe could
find.
HYPOCRITE LIBERAL! GROW UP!
JD
On Jan 15, 3:57 pm, "Joan F \(MI\)" <jjf...@removethisameritech.net>
wrote:
ylem
wrote:
> What you don't understand is that it is not my beloved Congress. There are
> a few people there who I like and support but not nearly enough of them to
> get anything really good accomplished. You saw what happened to Russ
> Feingold's bill, and now he is gone. I'm complaining because the whole
> system is corrupt, if you are one of the elites you can get away with
> anything. If you are just some poor slob you can get robbed or imprisoned
> for nothing. You're not safe because I don't for a minute believe you are
> any kind of elite.
>
> The Tea Partier have every right to be angry, but they are focusing their
> anger in the wrong direction. The politicians are just tools and the
> Republicans are just a bit worse than the Dems.
Mostly the The Tea Bags are angry because they've been continuously
lied to and manipulated by irrational fears.
Remember, half of all Tea Bags are over 50...and the world is changing
around them...and the president is a NEGRO!!! (OH NO, Mr. Bill!!!!)
http://www.bestfriendsgeneralstore.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/Mr_Bill_dog_toy_4.jpg
...and everything they thought they knew and could depend on is
bullshit!
*/:D>
Ylem
ylem
wrote:
Question: How many of those surveillance services are structured
around privatized corporate security firms?
Answer: They employ more contractors than federal workers.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022405433.html
Consider the constant spying carried out by Big Biz, which owns most
of our government...or privatized prisons, turned into corporate slave
labor camps.
Thanks to the right-wing, we are well on our way to becoming a
corporate-owned police state.
Ylem
seymore_donkies
> On Jan 15, 12:58 pm, "Joan F \(MI\)" <jjf...@removethisameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Bush started it. And what choice did I have, do you think McCain would do
> > any different. Fat chance. The real problem is that the corporate elite
> > own the politicians, except for a very few.
>
> > geewhiz wrote:
>
> > |
> > | ewe voted for this. what the fuck are ewe complaining about?
>
> Question: How many of those surveillance services are structured
> around privatized corporate security firms?
> Answer: They employ more contractors than federal workers.
>
>
> Consider the constant spying carried out by Big Biz, which owns most
> of our government...or privatized prisons, turned into corporate slave
> labor camps.
>
> Thanks to the right-wing, we are well on our way to becoming a
> corporate-owned police state.
> Ylem
which includes ewer filthy democrats and cic... yes?
JD
9876Geno
>
> - Show quoted text -
And remember that it was Bush and Cheney that started this latest
police state. Your as stupid as Ben Ali. Just not as rich.
seymore
>
> ...and everything they thought they knew and could depend on is
> bullshit!
> */:D>
> Ylem
perhaps ewe might recite the misgivings of the Tea Party platform that
would return the federal gummit to its constitutional limitations?
I bet ewe can't.
JD
9876Geno
>
> ...and everything they thought they knew and could depend on is
> bullshit!
> */:D>
> Ylem
And they don't have a clue what cyber war is. And their kids aren't
about to let them read their cell texting. Charlie tries to use text
words but it all comes out as rubbish. Which makes the under 30 kids
laugh like hell.
9876Geno
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
JD cyberspace is reading your news group rantings. Your gonna get a
bug and that's bad because no hospital will take you as Medicare has
put you on the death watch. Look at what happened to Ben Ali. That
sucker got railroaded to Saudi Arabia. Now you don't want that to
happen to you do you?
ylem
The so-called "Tea Party" was the creation of corporate lobbyists,
working through a lobbyist run organization called "Freedom Works" and
funded by corporate lobbyists.
The Tea Bags that got themselves elected are now being shepherded
around Washington by lobbyists.
So that whole mess is a joke.
Ylem
seymore
again... it is very amusing how ewe avoid the question and fly off on
a tangent because ewe have no clue.
tell me again what ewer gun-toting violent liberal ass has against
forcing the gummit to live within the constaints of the U.S.
Constitution....
JD
Dink
Let me help, JD. If gummint stayed within constraints of Constitution,
it couldn't dictate our light bulbs, toilets, shower heads, and
whatall.
--
Dink {Vox clamantis in deserto}
Mind where the huskies go and do not eat the yellow snow.