Homeland Security Denies Entrance To UK Tourist Because Of Twitter Joke

from the so-sorry,-too-bad dept

I am actually writing this post sitting in a French airport, getting ready to board my flight back to the US... but I think I'll hang onto it and post once I'm back in town. That's because it's about some UK tourists who were taking a little vacation to the US... until Homeland Security refused them entrance, because one of them had joked on Twitter about digging up the grave of Marilyn Monroe and "destroying" America (by which he meant partying). Apparently, DHS has figured out how to monitor Twitter... but hasn't figured out what a sense of humor is. (And yes, I made it home and through customs without any trouble).

Filed Under: border patrol, customs, homeland security, jokes, tourists

Falsely Putting Your Wife On The Terrorist Watch List May Hinder Your Chances For Promotion

from the just-a-tip dept

Wired has the bizarre story of a UK border agent who, in an apparent attempt to get his wife out of his life, put her name on the terrorist watch list, which left her stranded in Pakistan (where she was visiting relatives) for three years, unable to fly back home to the UK. That seems like a rather extreme way to get your wife out of the picture. And, apparently, this nefarious plan all would have worked... if only the guy never thought to apply for a promotion. Since the promotion would involve higher security clearance, he was put through a background check, where it was revealed his wife was on the watchlist. That created a bit of concern... and then it was realized that he had put her there. He's since been fired. Of course, the bigger question is whether or not whoever designed the system in such a way that it would allow a single person to add his own wife to the terrorist watch list, with no oversight and no review, was fired as well. It would seem like that person has some serious questions to answer as well.

Filed Under: border patrol, marital dispute, terrorist watch list, uk

US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)

from the feeling-safer? dept

We're still waiting for a good explanation of why Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement group is involved in internet copyright issues that have nothing to do with either immigration or customs enforcement, but it appears that those sharp border patrol folks are really doing their job protecting Americans from... chocolate toy eggs. Tim Good alerted us to this story of how the US Border Patrol did a random search on a Canadian woman's car as she crossed the border into Minnesota, and told her she had illegal contraband in her car in the form of a Kinder Surprise Egg. I'd never heard of this before, but apparently it's a confection with a chocolate shell and a toy inside.

According to US border patrol, they told her that it was a choking hazard and on the list of "prohibited items" in the US, though, as the folks at Reason (reasonably) point out:

A gander at the image... suggests you'd have to be awfully intent on getting that chocolate into your system not to notice the huge, bright yellow plastic capsule inside.

Take a look for yourself: Of course, that's not the end of the story, either. After leaving the chocolate egg and toy to the US border patrol agents, and figuring it was just a nuisance, the woman was somewhat surprised to receive a letter a week later, asking her if she was planning to come back to retrieve the egg. They noted if she did not, and she wanted to fight the seizure of the egg, she would need to pay the US government $250 in "storage costs" for the egg.

Is this really the best use of border patrol?

Filed Under: border patrol, customs, homeland security, kinder surprise egg

Visiting Australia? Make Sure You Tell The Customs Officials About The Porn On Your Hard Drive

from the perhaps-I'll-visit-new-zealand-instead... dept

We've discussed, a few times, the issues with border patrol/customs officials in the US searching laptops at the border. The reason it doesn't make much sense is that the purpose of border patrol is to make sure nothing bad gets into a country, but the content on your laptop can easily get into the country via the internet, rather than at the border. And even bigger concern, of course, is that people store everything on their laptops. If you're packing your suitcase for a trip somewhere, you pack only the things you want to take. Everything you bring is effectively "opt-in." However, on your laptop, you already have everything. If anything, you might (though I doubt many people do) delete some stuff to avoid having it searched. In other words, unlike your suitcase, the data on your laptop is more of an "opt-out" situation.

Well, it appears that down in Australia, they've taken border laptop concerns to a new and ridiculous level. Slashdot points us to claims for Australian officials that travelers entering Australia should have to declare all porn on their laptops. After some public outcry, that original claim was downgraded to "all illegal porn," but as some people are still pointing out, it's not at all clear what constitutes "illegal porn" in Australia, and it's a violation of privacy to demand that travelers reveal their laptop porn. Again, I'm at a loss as to how this actually helps with anything. It's not like having people declare it at the border will do anything to stop "illegal" porn. It just seems like an easy way to have something else to hold over people.

Filed Under: australia, border patrol, customs, porn, tourism

How Can Border Patrol Know Whether Music On Your iPod Is Infringing?

from the they-can't dept

As you may remember, two years ago, when news of ACTA first started getting attention, one of the key initial worries was that it would include language involving border patrol/customs agents scanning computers and other devices for "infringing content." At the time, many people pointed out that border patrol folks simply are in no position to determine what is and what is not infringing copyrights. Just as Viacom falsely thinks that YouTube somehow can make a similar legal decision on the fly, determining whether or not something infringes on copyright is not that simple. Soon after that, people were reassured that such provisions would not be a part of ACTA. However, it appears that in the latest leaked draft, some countries are supporting language that puts that concept back into ACTA. At that link, Howard Knopf does an excellent job explaining why such determinations should not (and cannot reasonably) be made at the border:

• A judgment call about whether a particular product is "legal" or not is very often far from clear. For example, running shoes or handbags may be made "illegally" on the same assembly lines as the "real" product "after hours" and be identical in all physical respects to the "real" product. How is the border official supposed to make the determination as to whether the goods are "legal" or not?
  
  
• In the case of parallel imports (which by definition are perfectly legitimate and neither fake nor counterfeit), the factual and legal issues are extremely complex. The US Supreme Court is about to hear a case about whether perfectly legitimate Omega watches with a small copyrighted logo engraved on the back can be imported into the US by Costco. Some of the smartest lawyers and judges in the USA are bitterly divided over how this case should turn out. In Canada, we had the Kraft case involving Toblerone chocolate bars, which resulted in a victory for the parallel importer and a complex judgment from a very divided Supreme Court of Canada (I was counsel for the Retail Council of Canada, whose intervener's arguments prevailed in the result). There was, of course, immediate speculation about how to get around the judgment but the subsequent court cases of which I am aware have settled or, in the case in which I was involved, fizzled.
  
  
• If the best lawyers and judges have to struggle intellectually about whether perfectly legitimate parallel import goods can be legally imported, are we ready to allow border guards with no legal education, and with no prior judicial oversight to make this initial determination and potentially tie up millions of dollars worth of merchandise for great lengths of time, forcing the importer to go to court to get the goods released?
  
  
• Border officials will inevitably be "educated" and provided with information about suspect shipments by those who may have a vested interest in keeping out parallel imports and may even have an interest in causing serious inconvenience to a legitimate competitor.
  
  
• The recent wrongful seizure of generic aids medicine in the Netherlands was vivid proof that empowering border officials to make difficult IP decisions can lead to serious and even potentially fatal consequences.
  
  
• Somebody should pay for the economic losses resulting from wrongful seizures. Who will that be?
  
  
• What remedies will there be for abuse or misuse of the "ex officio" system by competitors?
  
  
• What if the result of a wrongful seizure of medicine results in harm to health and safety?

There are a few more that are Canada specific (since Knopf is in Canada, and Canada is supporting the provision). Somehow I doubt we'll see much of a serious discussion of these important points, should this provision actually make it into ACTA.

Filed Under: acta, border patrol, copyright, infringement

Why Should Customs Officers Be Determining What Counts As A Copyright Circumvention Device?

from the border-patrol dept

Some of the earliest fears around ACTA concerned some of the earliest draft suggestions, that would increase the power of border patrol/customs officials to look for infringement at the border, including the possibility of searching your laptop or iPod for infringing content. While those provisions mostly seemed to drop out in the negotiations, it doesn't mean that there aren't still efforts to get closer to that sort of system. Mart Kuhn, at Public Knowledge, has an interesting post, looking at a bill in the Senate that would give customs the authority to determine if things crossing the border were "circumvention devices" as prohibited by the DMCA. Of course, as the article notes, determining what is and what is not a circumvention device is not particularly easy -- as various lawsuits have demonstrated. So it's quite questionable as to why anyone thinks border patrol agents should be involved in that process at all.

But a bigger issue is the same one at the heart of the debate over whether or not customs officials should have the right to search your laptop at the border. If the point of border patrol/customs is to prevent bad things from getting into the country, it's pretty ridiculous to try to prevent software at the border, because that software has already totally crossed over the border via the still mostly borderless internet. So this whole thing seems like a charade to look for more ways to take away basic privacy rights in favor of an entertainment industry that is so afraid someone might infringe that it doesn't realize trying to stop circumvention at the border won't do anything other than cause serious hassles for legitimate travelers.

Filed Under: border patrol, circumvention, copyright, customs

DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches

from the was-that-so-tough? dept

The Department of Homeland Security has pushed hard for the past few years to make sure it retains the right to search your laptop at the border with no real limitations. It is, indeed, (as defenders of this policy always like to point out) established law that the border is not in the country, so Constitutional 4th Amendment rights do not apply. That still doesn't make it right. I, like many others, would not have a problem with searches due to probable cause. Nor do we have any real problem with searches of physical luggage at the border. But a blank slate, seems like a bit much -- for a few reasons. First, the purpose of a border search is to see what you're bringing into the country. But, when it comes to digital data, no one's bringing it across the border to get it into the country. You could just send it over any number of internet protocols to get it into the country without using a laptop. So, the very rationale doesn't make sense. Second, when people travel, they specifically pick and choose what physical goods to put into their luggage. With a computer, the situation is the opposite. You automatically bring everything (including, potentially access to remote drives).

Still, DHS has insisted it wants to keep this right, even as some politicians have looked to protect against laptop searches at the border. Earlier this year, DHS put out slightly clearer rules, but which still allowed for no probable cause in doing a search.

One big question hanging over all of this, however, was how often such searches took place. Thomas O'Toole alerts us to a new DHS report that finally reveals the numbers -- and, it's at least marginally good news: these sorts of searches happen very rarely. That's a good thing and suggests that the policy isn't widely abused:

Of the more than 144 million travelers that arrived at U.S. ports of entry between Oct. 1, 2008 and May 5, 2009, searches of electronic media were conducted on 1,947 of them, the DHS said.

Of this number, 696 searches were performed on laptop computers, the DHS said. Even here, not all of the laptops received an "in-depth" search of the device, the report states. A search sometimes may have been as simple as turning on a device to ensure that it was what it purported to be. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents conducted "in-depth" searches on 40 laptops, but the report did not describe what an in-depth search entailed.

I'm certainly happy to see that such a policy is used so rarely, but I still question why it should be used at all.

Filed Under: border patrol, homeland security, laptop searches

American Citizen Detained At Border Due To Drawing Of An SUV

from the think-how-much-worse-it-could-be dept

If you want to understand why we're so troubled by the ACTA treaty that many nations are working on in secret, we just need to look at a story highlighted recently at Boing Boing about an American woman who was detained for a while at the US-Canadian border because she had a drawing of an SUV. The customs officials accused her of being an industrial spy and copyright infringer. In actuality, she's a professor and artist, who was doing an art project involving an SUV.

Of course, what the ACTA treaty would do is give customs officials and border guards even broader authority and a mandate to try to "stop copyright infringement" at the border. It would open people up to inspections for all sorts of things, from computers to personal devices -- and if you thought a random drawing could get someone detained before, just imagine what happens after ACTA is put in place.

The most ridiculous part, of course, is that this really has nothing to do with what the border patrol should be focused on: which is keeping dangerous people or things out of the country. Copyright infringement is meaningless at the border. Infringement happens across borders all the time online. Stopping it physically at the border makes no sense. If someone wants infringement to cross the border, they'll just send it online, rather than carry it on their body. And, until customs and border patrol starts scanning every IP packet at the border, it's a total waste of time and effort to ask border patrol officials to search for copyright infringement. It takes their energy and attention away from the real task at hand of keeping dangerous people out.

Filed Under: acta, border, border patrol, copyright, customs, drawing

Homeland Security Continues To Expand Border Searches: Now Can Copy Your Paper-Based Documents

from the probable-cause-is-so-last-millennium dept

We've been covering the stories of how the Department of Homeland Security has a policy in place that lets it search and copy the contents of your laptop as you cross the border without any probable cause. DHS's reasoning for why it needs this power are not particularly convincing -- focusing mainly on scare mongering rather than rational argument. Now, the EFF has discovered, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request, that it's not just computer data that DHS wants to copy. Last year, it quietly changed its policies to allow customs and border guards to read and copy any personal papers the traveler has, even without "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause." Compared to searching through and copying your hard drive, this may seem like a minor deal, but it's yet another example of DHS expanding its authority in ways that are very likely to be abused.

Filed Under: border patrol, customs, homeland security, personal documents

DHS Reveals Policies For Searching Laptops At The Border: Anything Goes

from the privacy-schmivacy dept

After courts repeatedly have ruled that border patrol customs agents can look through your computer hard drive, or even confiscate your computer, with no reasonable cause whatsoever, pressure from groups like the EFF have convinced Congress to investigate. As part of this process, the Department of Homeland Security has revealed its policies for border searches of electronic devices, and as you'd imagine, the policies are basically: "border patrol can do whatever it wants."

It does not need any reasonable cause. It take away your laptop for as long as it wants. It can copy the contents of your laptop and even share it with both other federal agencies and private entities for "language translation, data decryption or other reasons." Other reasons seems a bit broad.

We already explained how ridiculous the defense of this police was last month, by noting that it's not as if stopping this content at the border will actually prevent it from getting in the country. At that time we also pointed out how silly it was for a DHS supporter to claim that reasonable cause shouldn't be necessary because that's just not practical. That guy was unable to explain why it is practical throughout the rest of the country not to randomly search laptops, but at the border, suddenly it's not. However, this article now includes another defense from a customs official, saying that these searches "do not infringe on Americans' privacy." How do we know? Apparently, we just have to trust the DHS.

Luckily, this appears to be getting some attention from Congressional representatives who find the whole thing troublesome. The article notes that legislation to stop such searches will be forthcoming soon.

Filed Under: border patrol, customs, dhs, homeland security, laptops, searches