CBP Agents Flocked To Closed Facebook Groups To Post Bigoted Memes And Insult Detainees

from the probably-still-flocking,-just-switching-URLs dept

In news that will surprise no one, Customs and Border Protection -- like many other law enforcement agencies -- is shot through with bigots and sadists. ProPublica was sent screenshots from a closed Facebook group composed of Border Patrol agents. The "10-15 Group," named for the Border Patrol code for "aliens in custody," entertained itself by posting offensive memes and generally treating the people they interact with most as subhuman, at best.

Members of a secret Facebook group for current and former Border Patrol agents joked about the deaths of migrants, discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility in Texas on Monday and posted a vulgar illustration depicting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant, according to screenshots of their postings.

In one exchange, group members responded with indifference and wisecracks to the post of a news story about a 16-year-old Guatemalan migrant who died in May while in custody at a Border Patrol station in Weslaco, Texas. One member posted a GIF of Elmo with the quote, “Oh well.” Another responded with an image and the words “If he dies, he dies.”

If there's anyone out there that still believes law enforcement agencies are filled with the best kind of people, I'm sorry you've had your illusions shattered so late in life. There's nothing about these jobs that draws the best people. Turnover is a constant problem so we're left with the kind of people that enjoy the thought of capturing and incarcerating other human beings. This closed group is just a digital manifestation of the ugliness lying below the surface of the CBP.

This shouldn't surprise you. It sure as fuck didn't surprise CBP management.

Customs and Border Protection officials have been aware for up to three years that a secret Facebook group for current and former Border Patrol agents was posting offensive messages — far longer than previously reported.

Border Patrol leadership knew about photos posted to the group as far back as 2016, when agents reported them, according to a current Homeland Security official.

According to this Politico report, not a single agent was ever punished or reprimanded for their comments and posts in this closed group. Sure, they're being denounced now by top Homeland Security officials, but it's years too late. CBP supervisors had an opportunity to pass this up the ladder three years ago but did nothing. Springing into action when there are no options left is no one's idea of heroic. There's no excusing the CBP's refusal to act when it was first notified. There's finally an Inspector General's investigation underway, but it will be months or years before we see results from this, if ever.

The CBP continues to stand by its personnel, saying most of its staff are good people not prone to posting bigoted content to closed Facebook groups. This is a pretty safe stance to take when no one's outing the members of the 10-15 Group. But that stance has already passed its expiration date. The Intercept infiltrated the group and managed to make off with tons of screenshots before posts were deleted by members and moderators following the ProPublica article.

Not only is The Intercept publishing the screenshots it grabbed, it's publishing them with the names of CBP agents on full display. Good. Speech has consequences and DC politicians have been promising retribution. With names out in the open, the Congressional bluff has been called. Put up or shut up, reps. And I'm sure the CBP Inspector General appreciates any input it can get, even if it has to come from outside sources.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE

At least one other social media group with an apparent nexus to Customs and Border Protection has been discovered to contain vulgar and sexually explicit posts, according to screenshots shared by two sources familiar with the Facebook pages.

The secret Facebook group, "The Real CBP Nation," which has around 1,000 members, is host to an image that mocks separating migrant families, multiple demeaning memes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, and other derisive images of Asians and African Americans.

According to posts seen by CNN, members of this closed group expressed their disappointment at the exposure and semi-shuttering of the 10-15 Group. Some members also called those bailing on the now-toxic group "cowards," as if distancing yourself from a sinking ship filled with burning shit wasn't the CBP way.

And, once again, there's evidence CBP officials were well aware of these groups and the content they posted.

In 2018, a senior official warned all agency employees of potential discipline, after having been informed of a private Facebook group with inappropriate and offensive posts, according to a memo obtained by CNN.

"Recently the Agency was made aware of a private Facebook group page that only a specific group of CBP employee could access, on which inappropriate and offensive posts were made," Klein wrote.

Either no one got the memo or memos simply don't work. Top DHS and CBP officials will likely pretend this represents a small portion of the CBP workforce -- the worst of the worst. But it doesn't. It represents a cross-section of its workforce. Some have no qualms posting bigoted memes to Facebook. For other employees, having a job that caters to their biases and prejudices is its own reward.

Filed Under: behavior, border patrol, cbp, culture, dhs, insults, memes
Companies: facebook

Securing The Nation With Insecure Databases: CBP Vendor Hacked, Exposing Thousands Of License Plate, Car Passenger Photos

from the guess-you-have-to-give-up-some-security-to-gain-some-security? dept

US Customs and Border Protection has suffered an inevitability in the data collection business. The breach was first reported by the Washington Post. It first appeared to affect the DHS's airport facial recognition system, but further details revealed it was actually a border crossing database that was compromised.

The breach involved photos of travelers and their vehicles, which shows the CPB is linking people to vehicles with this database, most likely to make it easier to tie the two together with the billions of records ICE has access to through Vigilant's ALPR database.

The breach involved a contractor not following the rules of its agreement with the CBP. According to the vendor agreement, all harvested data was supposed to remain on the government's servers. This breach targeted the vendor, which means the contractor had exfiltrated photos and plate images it was specifically forbidden from moving to its own servers.

According to reports from other news agencies, the breach likely involve Perceptics, a Tennessee-based manufacturer of stationary license plate readers. The Register first reported a breach there on May 23, after being contacted by a hacker possibly involved with the attack on the company's servers. The CBP claims it was not aware of this breach until May 31. But this piece of info from the Register's article seems to indicate Perceptics may be the vendor the agency has refused to name.

Perceptics recently announced, in a pact with Unisys Federal Systems, it had landed "a key contract by US Customs and Border Protection to replace existing LPR technology, and to install Perceptics next generation License Plate Readers (LPRs) at 43 US Border Patrol check point lanes in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California."

This is all but confirmed in the Washington Post's report, which contains another link to Perceptics the CBP has refused to officially confirm.

CBP would not say which subcontractor was involved. But a Microsoft Word document of CBP’s public statement, sent Monday to Washington Post reporters, included the name “Perceptics” in the title: “CBP Perceptics Public Statement.”

No personal info was included in the breach, which the CBP said affected about 100,000 travelers entering and exiting the US through a single point of entry. It also claims it hasn't seen any of the data surface on the light or dark web, so there's that, if that statement is actually true.

This news has prompted many reactions, including some very obvious ones: first and foremost, the easiest way to minimize the damage of inevitable data breaches is to not harvest so much damn data. Unfortunately, the DHS's plans only involve expansion of its existing collection programs, including a larger rollout of its airport biometric scanning and its new mandatory collection of social media info from incoming foreigners.

It's pretty tough to secure a nation when you can't secure a database. This breach may have been the result of a vendor breaking the rules, but the Office of Personnel Management breach proves the US government isn't immune from these attacks. The more you gather and store in one place, the more often you'll be targeted by enemies foreign and domestic.

Finally, the incident has angered a handful of Congressional reps.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) announced on Monday that his committee would hold hearings next month to examine the collection of biometric information by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes CBP.

Thompson also noted that he wants to ensure “we are not expanding the use of biometrics at the expense of the privacy of the American public.”

Homeland Security Committee ranking member Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), used the breach to criticize DHS’s handling of cybersecurity challenges, saying in a statement to The Hill that “the agency is ill-equipped to handle emerging cyberthreats.”

“The data breach resulted from a contractor acting improperly and against agency policy,” Rogers said. “We need to take steps to ensure this does not happen again.”

Ensuring contractors follow the rules isn't really a solution. It may reduce the number of attack vectors, but it doesn't address the underlying issue: we're collecting more data on people than ever before and breaches are not a matter of "if," but "when." Until Congress gets serious about scaling back these massive collections, these will remain popular targets with the potential to cause a tremendous amount of harm to the millions of people who pass through our borders and airports.

Filed Under: alpr, cbp, hacked, license plates, photos, privacy
Companies: perceptics

Bill Introduced To Create A Warrant Requirement For Border Device Searches

from the 4th-amendment-matters dept

With a great deal of luck, we may finally get a bit more respect for Constitutional rights at the border. The Supreme Court may have ruled that searches of cellphones require warrants, but that ruling doesn't apply within 100 miles of any US border (that includes international airports). Warrantless device searches happen regularly and with increasing frequency.

So far, courts have been hesitant to push back against the government's assertions that border security is more important than the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And if the courts do feel something should be done to protect US citizens and foreign visitors, they feel it should be done by Congress, not by them.

So, it's good to see Congress may actually do something about this. Jack Corrigan of Nextgov has the details:

Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Wednesday introduced legislation that would increase digital privacy protections for U.S. residents crossing the border and limit the situations in which agents could legally seize their devices. If enacted, the Protecting Data at the Border Act would curb law enforcement’s extensive authority over electronic information at the border.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., introduced a companion bill in the House.

The bill [PDF] would institute a warrant requirement for border device searches, which is a really weird sentence to type considering the Supreme Court of the United States of America instituted a warrant requirement for device searches five years ago. But there it is: an attempt to codify a SCOTUS decision so it's respected by US government agencies.

It also prevents border agents from denying entry to anyone refusing to disclose passwords or unlock devices during screening. It also blocks them from detaining anyone for more than four hours in hopes of turning denials into consensual searches.

Unfortunately, there are some loopholes. And one of those is sizable. "Emergency situations" allow border agents to bypass the Constitutional niceties. One of those is an old -- and super-vague -- favorite:

[c]onspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States

That's the catch-22. The law can't pass without this exception and it's this exception that will be abused the most. But the institution of a warrant requirement will force the government to put a little more effort into its "national security" hand-waving if it hopes to use evidence pulled from devices in court.

Also important is the institution of documentation procedures for consent searches. It won't be enough for officers to claim detainees volunteered passwords or otherwise agreed to have their devices searched. They'll need to have the whole thing documented and the form signed by the detainee. Every device search must be documented as well, whether or not a forensic search was performed.

It's a good bill, national security exception notwithstanding. But it's being lobbed into an unwelcoming political arena. President Trump is still demanding a wall and has declared a national emergency simply because he wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country. Border security is national security, according to this administration, even when there's little evidence showing immigrants are more likely to commit acts of terrorism, never mind regular crime. This administration and those backing it (and they are many) are more than happy to suspend the Bill of Rights at the border for as long as they're in power. That's the reality of the situation.

While this bill would bring border agencies into alignment with Supreme Court precedent, it's highly unlikely this won't be rejected by the President if it even manages to make it that far.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border, border search, cbp, device searches, warrants

Mexican Government Pitched In To Help The CBP Spy On Journalists, Activists, And Lawyers

from the odd-coupling dept

The CBP has an unlikely partner in its surveillance of journalists, activists, and lawyers: the Mexican government. It's not going to pay for The Wall™, but it's apparently willing to help out in other ways.

A government review of how journalists, attorneys, immigration advocates, and activists were monitored and tracked by U.S. border agencies confirms the Mexican government had a major role in the controversial tracking program.

In a letter dated May 9, 2019, Randy Howe, Executive Director of Field Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) notes that “...CBP partnered with the Government of Mexico [to] address developing threats…” posed by the Central American Migrant caravan.

“A number of journalists and photographers were identified by Mexican Federal Police as possibly assisting migrants in crossing the border illegally and/or as having some level of participation in the violent incursion events,” CBP’s letter states.

Mexican government officials originally stated the government was not involved in this controversial surveillance. These assertions have been undercut by a statement written in response to a letter from a coalition of press outfits and rights groups demanding to know why the CBP and DHS were adding First Amendment violations to their long list of Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.

Here's the Mexican government's original statement, which has suddenly aged very badly.

“The government of Mexico disapproves of all acts of illegal espionage against any person, domestic or foreign. The Mexican government does not conduct illegal surveillance on anyone, for any type or category of activity,” a statement read.

I guess it all depends on how you define "illegal." Or "surveillance." Maybe the federal police limited themselves to adding people to the CBP's watchlist. Perhaps this sort of surveillance isn't illegal in Mexico. But it's definitely on the illegal side here in the United States. If it's not a legal issue on the other side of the border, then the CBP and DHS are basically using a foreign government to engage in surveillance they're not allowed to perform on this side of the fence.

It doesn't appear the CBP and DHS are all that concerned about the possible Constitutional violations they're engaged in themselves. The letter the CVP sent says the agency was only trying to round up people trying to assist migrants in crossing the border illegally, which somehow included journalists covering the border caravans and immigration lawyers trying to help people through the asylum process.

The CBP does admit it will periodically violate Constitutional rights, but it claims these violations are only minor speed bumps on the road of American life.

Occasionally, CBP may inconvenience law-abiding persons in our effort to detect, deter, and mitigate threats to our homeland.

Well, I'm glad that's all cleared up. The CBP does not engage in illegal surveillance (except when it does) and does not target protected First Amendment activities (except those occurring near the border) and only in the interest of national security does it ignore rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. And it's doing all this with a foreign government's help -- a government that denied it had anything to do with this surveillance when first asked about its involvement.

Filed Under: activists, cbp, journalists, mexico, spying, surveillance

Coalition Of Rights Activists And Journalists Wants To Know Why DHS, CBP, And ICE Are Spying On Activists And Journalists

from the can't-be-authoritarian-without-exceeding-your-authority dept

Early this March, documents obtained by NBC San Diego showed the DHS was targeting journalists. activists, and immigration lawyers for enhanced screenings and device searches by the CBP. The previously-secret database held dossiers on people suspected of doing nothing more than participating in Constitutionally-protected activity.

The DHS provided no explanation for this collection of dossiers. The CBP attempted to explain its participation in rights violations by first claiming it was necessary to secure the border. Then it said every one of the 59 journalists, lawyers, and activists in the leaked documents were "present" during "violence" that "broke out at the border" last November. That these people would be present at such an event is unsurprising, given the amount of attention being paid to our southern border and immigration in recent months. That the CPB would decide this justifies dossiers, enhanced screenings, and invasive device searches is a bit more disturbing, as it has the potential to negatively affect a number of Constitutional rights.

The Center for Democracy and Technology -- along with dozens of humans rights activists and journalist entities -- have sent a letter to the head of the DHS, demanding this surveillance stop immediately and that an investigation be opened to determine this effort's origins, as well as its extent. It also demands DHS and CBP hand over all policies, guidelines, and documents detailing what information the agencies collected during this possibly-unlawful surveillance.

But there's more to the letter than demands and expressed concerns. CDT's letter also recounts further details that have come to light over the past couple of months, including ICE joining the unconstitutional party to engage in immigration and customs enforcement by… surveilling political protests?

In addition to CBP, ICE engaged in questionable conduct that threatens the rights of free expression and association. ICE-HSI created a spreadsheet of protests that occurred in New York City between July 21 and August 17, 2018. The list contained the names of the groups sponsoring each protest, the political goal of the protest, and the number of people who signed up on Facebook to attend the protest. One spreadsheet was labeled “Anti-Trump Protests.” ICE’s surveillance activity does not appear to be predicated upon any suspected violation of a law ICE enforces.

While we do not see evidence that ICE created records with personally identifying information, it is unambiguous that ICE documented First Amendment-protected activity, which may violate the Privacy Act of 1974 and warrants further investigation. To the extent ICE is monitoring and creating records of First Amendment-protected activity of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and to the extent such records are not pertinent to and within the scope of its authorized law enforcement activity, such conduct is in violation of the Privacy Act.

The DHS and its subsidiaries are keeping the homeland secure by using Constitutional rights as a doormat. There's nothing about this surveillance and targeting that even remotely suggests the end result will be a safer America. There can be little doubt these activities are being engaged in almost solely for the purpose of dissuading journalists from covering border activities, immigrants from finding good legal representation, and activists of all sorts from expressing their displeasure with the government.

The answers these entities are seeking probably won't arrive any time soon. Most likely, it will take pressure from Congress, along with a number of FOIA lawsuits, to make this information public. The current administration seemingly has no problem with the collateral damage its border-focused directives are creating. And with zero pressure to fall in line with the Constitution coming from up top, it's likely these abuses will continue unabated for immediate future.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, activists, cbp, dhs, ice, reporters, surveillance

CBP, ICE Have No Idea If Their Thousands Of Warrantless Device Searches Are Actually Making The Country Safer

from the so-essential-we-can't-even-be-bothered-to-justify-it dept

An ongoing lawsuit by the EFF and ACLU challenging warrantless device searches at the border has uncovered some disturbing news. The CBP and ICE have guidelines that govern these searches but they're so expansive they allow these agencies to search any device for almost any reason. We know this because it came straight from the agencies in their testimony during this case.

The government has long argued -- mostly successfully -- that the our rights as Americans (and those we extend to those entering our country) simply don't apply at the border. Why? The best the government can offer is that national security trumps the Constitution within 100 miles of any border, port, or international airport. Securing the nation apparently can't be done without violating rights, so rights will just have to be violated.

The CBP has been searching devices with increasing frequency over the past couple of years, providing plenty of ammo for court challenges. Unfortunately, none have been successful. But maybe this damning testimony showing the government granting itself all sorts of leeway might finally result in some restoration of our rights at our borders. The many details of border search policies are detailed in the EFF/ACLU's motion for summary judgment [PDF], asking the court to side with Americans and their rights, rather than exaggerated claims about the insecurity of our nation.

The CBP's policies place almost no restrictions on searches of devices. Basic searches -- which involve an agent paging through a phone's contents manually, rather than using another device to perform a forensic search -- can be done with zero reasonable suspicion.

Policy allows officers to retain devices for as long as they want. The policy says retention shouldn't exceed five days, but there is no upper limit to how long the CBP can hold onto a device with supervisory approval. The policies also allow the CBP to retain data from devices even when it has no probable cause to do so.

This information is then shared with a number of other agencies, which the CBP can't be bothered to vet.

The CBP Policy permits officers to share information retained from electronic devices with federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies. Exh. 19 (CBP 2018 Directive) at § 5.5.1.3, Bates 122.

CBP does not know how long other government entities keep the information they receive from CBP’s border searches of electronic devices. Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 200:2–12.

CBP does not monitor whether other government entities impermissibly retain the information CBP shares from border searches of electronic devices. Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 203:7–204:3

If the CBP wants to, it can turn over seized devices to ICE. ICE has its own policies, but it also does not need reasonable suspicion to perform a basic search. Unlike the CBP, ICE says it has up to 30 days to perform a device search. Again, this soft cap on retention can be removed by a supervisor, giving the agency indefinite possession of someone else's devices.

Unlike the CBP, ICE actually destroys info that isn't relevant to its work. But that may not matter much because ICE is also allowed to share this info with other agencies and does not make any destruction demands when its does so.

If a person has been flagged by CBP's "Automated Targeting System," the information pulled from their devices can be stored for more than a decade.

If an advanced search of an electronic device yields information that a CBP officer deems of law enforcement benefit, then the officer will copy it into ATS.

[...]

ATS stores copies of data from travelers’ devices, not officers’ narrative descriptions of that data. Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 190:10–19.

ATS stores copies of data from travelers’ devices for 15 years or “the life of the law enforcement matter,” whichever is longer. Exh. 23 (CBP 2017 ATS PIA) at Bates 1037.

The number of device searches by the CBP continues to escalate, up from 5,085 in 2012 to 33,295 in 2018. These numbers are likely lower than the actual number of searches the agency performed because CBP officers aren't all that great at filling out paperwork -- something that happened to the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

CBP determines the number of border searches of electronic devices in a given period by calculating the number of closed or completed Electronic Media Reports (“EMRs”). Exh. 26 (Defs. Interrog. Responses) at #11. EMRs are sometimes called “IOEMs.” Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 201:7–9.

CBP officers sometimes do not complete EMRs after conducting border searches of electronic devices. Exh. 27 (DHS OIG 2018 Report) at Bates 973, 978; Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 248:18–249:9.

For example, on August 28, 2017, CBP officers searched the smartphone they seized from Plaintiff Nadia Alasaad’s bag. Exhs. 15 & 16 (Answer and Complaint) at ¶¶ 73–74, 76. Defendants have no records, including EMRs, documenting that search. Exh. 26 (Defs. Doc. Responses) at #17.

We have to assume the same thing is happening with ICE. Unfortunately, we don't know how often ICE searches devices because the agency has conveniently decided not to track that information.

Despite both agencies claiming to be very concerned about national security and immigration law violations, a lot of what ICE does has nothing to do with either.

ICE asserts that agents may conduct a warrantless or suspicionless border search of the electronic device of a traveler:

a. Who is suspected of violating tax laws, to find emails reflecting the tax law violations. Exh. 14 (ICE 30(b)(6) depo.) at 29:4–8, 31:5–12.

b. Who is suspected of hiding assets in bankruptcy, to find emails reflecting the hiding of assets. Id. at 33:4–22.

c. Who is an executive of a company suspected of criminally dumping toxins into a river, to find emails reflecting the illegal dumping. Id. at 31:14–23, 32:2–8.

d. Who is suspected of violating consumer protection laws, to find evidence reflecting the consumer protection law violations. Id. at 32:10–33:2.

e. Who is suspected of money laundering, to find emails or other evidence reflecting money laundering, including the creation of corporations and accounts and the structuring of deposits. Id. at 41:3–42:13

ICE likely searches devices for evidence of any number of criminal activities unrelated to immigration or customs enforcement. Multiple federal agencies are making use of the border exception by proxy, asking ICE to perform the warrantless searches they can't.

ICE’s decisions to conduct warrantless or suspicionless border searches of electronic devices are informed by information or requests from other government agencies. Exh. 26 (Defs. Interrog. Responses) at #17. See also Exh. 14 (ICE 30(b)(6) depo.) at 189:9–190:21, 191:18–192:3. These agencies include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, State Department, state and local police departments and county sheriffs, and foreign law enforcement agencies. Exh. 14 (ICE 30(b)(6) depo.) at 194:13–201:25.

It's not just the Fourth Amendment being ignored at the borders. It's also the First Amendment. ICE testimony shows it searches the devices of journalists if they've made any contact with suspected terrorists or "foreign sources of interest to the government," regardless of whether or not the journalist is suspected of wrongdoing.

Despite a stated need to use Constitutional rights as a doormat in the interest of the greater good -- i.e., securing the nation -- neither agency can say for sure these invasive warrantless searches are actually making the country safer.

CBP and ICE do not know how many warrantless or suspicionless border searches of electronic devices uncover digital contraband. Exh. 26 (Defs. Interrog. Responses) at #13; Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 68:10–14; Exh. 14 (ICE 30(b)(6) depo.) at 44:25–45:7.

CBP and ICE do not know how many warrantless or suspicionless border searches of electronic devices uncover potential evidence of criminal activity. Exh. 13 (CBP 30(b)(6) depo.) at 68:15–20; Exh. 14 (ICE 30(b)(6) depo.) at 338:18–24.

CBP does not know how many warrantless or suspicionless border searches of electronic devices result in prosecution or conviction. Exh. 27 (DHS OIG 2018 Report) at Bates 982.

ICE does not know how many warrantless or suspicionless border device searches result in criminal arrests or indictments, or referrals to other law enforcement agencies. Exh. 36 (ICE/HSI Priority Requests) at Bates 93.

This is the tradeoff: we lose our rights and, in return, we get a shrug. It's time for the judicial system to stop cutting the federal government so much "national security" slack.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cbp, device searches, ice, record keeping

ICE, CBP Want To Sit With The Adults, Angling For Entrance Into The Intelligence Community

from the all-about-foreigners-but-operating-domestically dept

Has the DHS been trying to put the "IC" in ICE? A letter reviewed by Betsy Woodruff of The Daily Beast seems to indicate ICE is possibly now part of the "Intelligence Community," bringing it in line with the FBI, CIA, and others who have access to the NSA's collections.

The revelation came in a letter that David Glawe, DHS’ undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, wrote to Congress late last year. This letter, the contents of which have not been previously reported, sheds new light on ICE’s relationship with the 17 U.S. government organizations that collect and analyze intelligence, known collectively as the Intelligence Community or IC.

It's no secret ICE wants in. Previous reporting by The Daily Beast shows ICE and CBP both felt they had something to offer the Intelligence Community. Both agencies collect a lot of data on travelers and visitors, and the latter agency is cloning the contents of electronic devices (phones, laptops, etc.) with increasing frequency.

This attempt to cozy up to the IC was noticed by members of Congress, who asked for clarification on ICE's intents and partnerships. This led to a letter from David Glawe the Beast reviewed -- sent late last year -- claiming ICE's application for membership had been declined.

“The Secretary of Homeland Security and I agree that this is not the right time to pursue potential IC membership for CBP and ICE,” he wrote.

That's what part of the letter states. The rest of it, however, isn't nearly as clear. As Woodruff points out, Glawe's answer is filled with jargon, making it difficult to parse ICE/CBP's links to the IC. But there's enough contained in the letter to make it appear as though ICE/CBP are doing exactly the thing David Glawe says they're not doing. The letter refers to ICE's "enhanced intelligence capabilities," which include "collection." This could be referring to some unreported programs ICE is running or new tech it's deployed. But it also could mean what it says literally: that ICE is tapping into the IC's collections.

This densely-worded flow of contradictions has raised concerns in the civil liberties community. (It should raise concerns elsewhere, but it almost always starts here.) What it sounds like is potentially-unlawful domestic surveillance.

“I’m curious about the phrases ‘fuses intelligence into operational functions’ and ‘activities to inform actions,’ which sound like there is some type of information sharing arrangement going on,” said Jake Laperruque, a lawyer for the Project on Government Oversight who focuses on privacy and surveillance. “If information is coming from PATRIOT Act Sec. 215 or FISA Section 702, that would be a huge controversy.”

Domestic surveillance in the interest of enforcing immigration laws would be a new twist on an old formula. Other IC components already have access to NSA data stores, which allow them to perform backdoor searches on domestic data and communications. ICE operates domestically but targets foreign persons here unlawfully. That novel blend will make blurring the lines on access to domestic communications and data that much easier.

Added to this mix is the CBP's newfound enthusiasm for demanding social media account passwords and performing forensic searches of electronic devices. These two initiatives routinely ensnare US citizens and others here legally. With an IC partnership, domestic surveillance would expand -- all under the theory that anything shared will result in better national security.

The Daily Beast has asked the DHS for clarification on the data collection it already performs as well as its "enhanced capabilities" via its connection to the Intelligence Community. The agency has yet to comment on Glawe's cryptic, but worrisome, response to Congressional questions. There's a good chance any answers provided will be just as cryptic and/or composed mainly of non-denial denials. This administration has made border security a priority. This is the ideal environment for expanding the IC to include immigration agencies. And once they're in, they'll stay in, no matter who's running the White House in the future.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, ice, intelligence, intelligence community, law enforcement, surveillance

ACLU Asks CBP Why It's Threatening US Citizens With Arrest For Refusing Invasive Device Searches

from the I-assume-'because-fuck-you,-that's-why'-is-the-answer-we'll-be-g dept

Just a reminder this is the sort of thing that is happening at our borders with exponentially-increasing frequency.

The agents proceeded to search my belongings and demanded that I unlock my smartphone and laptop. This was rather concerning for me. My phone and laptop are property of my employer and contain unreleased software and proprietary information. I’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement promising not to give anyone access.

Because I was uncertain about my legal responsibilities to my employer, I asked the agents if I could speak to my employer or an attorney before unlocking my devices. This request seemed to aggravate the customs officers. They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111.

Those are the words of Andreas Gal, Apple engineer and outspoken defender of online privacy. Gal is a US citizen, not that you'd know that from the treatment he received from the CBP. Gal also has "Global Entry" status, which provides "expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers upon arrival in the United States."

Global Entry is the CBP's version of the TSA's Precheck program. In both cases, the federal government is willing to respect a bit more of your rights in exchange for a lot of personal info and a bit of cash. You can see how well that's working out for Gal, who was told he could not speak to an attorney and would be arrested if he did not allow agents to search his devices. In addition, he was told his Global Entry status would be revoked and was only allowed to exit the CBP's custody by leaving his devices behind so the CBP could search them at its leisure.

The ACLU has lodged a formal complaint [PDF] with the CBP, demanding answers for its refusal to treat an American citizen like an American citizen.

CBP must ensure that its officers comply with the U.S. Constitution. Even at the border, the search of an electronic device is governed by the Fourth Amendment. To satisfy Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court law concerning electronic searches, any such search should be based on a warrant and be limited in scope to information relevant to the agency’s legitimate purpose in conducting the search. The attempted unconstitutional search of Dr. Gal’s devices illustrates that CBP’s policies do not in fact include the requirements necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights of people at the border.

The CBP has been given a lot of latitude to perform extensive searches at the border. But officers still need reasonable suspicion to demand US citizens unlock their devices for examination. Sadly, there's still no warrant requirement at the border, even after the Supreme Court's Riley decision. Multiple courts have held that securing our borders from threats like privacy advocates and Apple engineers is more important than respecting the rights the Founding Fathers said we were guaranteed.

The ACLU's complaint letter suggests another complaint is on its way to a federal court.

There was no basis for Dr. Gal to be detained and interrogated by “TTRT” officers with special training in “counterterrorism response.” Dr. Gal entered the United States as a holder of Global Entry status, available only to “low-risk” individuals. And Dr. Gal has been an entrepreneur, technologist, and public figure for decades. Designating Dr. Gal for interrogation by “TTRT” indicates that Dr. Gal was targeted because of his exercise of his First Amendment rights in expressing viewpoints that may be disfavored by the federal government.

Compounding violations is never a smart move, but courts have handed so much Constitutional slack to border agencies, it will be tough to step over the pile of ignored rights to secure a victory. But every challenge edges us closer to a decision that may finally find the federal government isn't free to ignore rights its supposed to be protecting just because there's a border involved.

(Hat tip to Techdirt Insider Jeffrey Nonken who dropped a link related to this story into our Insider Chat. And a hat tip to all the Insiders in the chat who are always dropping useful and interesting links into the sidebar of this site!)

Filed Under: andreas gal, cbp, civil liberties, device searches, global entry, privacy, rights
Companies: aclu, apple

7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything

from the thanks-for-all-the-help,-judicial-system dept

The "border search" exception again trumps the Constitution. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined [PDF] that the Supreme Court's Riley decision that implemented a warrant requirement for phone searches does not apply at our hypersensitive border areas. In this case, the border area affected is [squints at ruling] Chicago's O'Hare Airport.

Anyway, CBP and DHS investigators had their eyes on a man returning from a suspicious trip to the Philippines. Suspecting the man was engaged in sex tourism, he was stopped by CBP officers upon his return. Lots of things didn't add up so the CBP asked for permission to search his phone. The officers made it clear this request was simply them being polite. They were going to search his devices anyway.

After completing this check of [Donald] Wanjiku’s bags, [Officer] Toler turned his attention to the cell phone. The phone was password-protected, and Toler began by asking Wanjiku to unlock the phone. Wanjiku initially resisted but relented when Toler told him that everything was searchable at the border and that the phone would be seized, unlocked by a “lab,” and examined whether or not Wanjiku unlocked it.

A cursory examination uncovered a couple of photos that may or may not have been child porn. (The officer said he couldn't determine the subject's age and the district court found this testimony credible.) A hard drive the suspect had in his bag was subjected to a "forensic preview" that only scanned allocated space for files, rather than mirror the drive in its entirety. A similar preview was performed on the man's Samsung phone. In both cases, child pornography was discovered by agents. Further searches were performed the next day.

The defendant challenged the evidence, pointing out that the Supreme Court's Riley decision requires the use of warrants for phone searches. The government argued that it needed nothing at all to perform invasive searches of travelers' devices. The court says neither of these polar opposites are correct. It also says it really doesn't care who's right, who's wrong, or where the line should be drawn in relation to border searches and the Riley decision.

The primary positions staked out by the parties could not be more starkly contrasted. The defendant argues that nothing less than a warrant authorizes a search of electronic devices at the border. The government asserts that it may conduct these searches without any particularized suspicion at all. In the end, though, we need not adopt either of these positions, and indeed may avoid entirely the thorny issue of the appropriate level of suspicion required. Instead, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress because these agents acted in good faith when they searched the devices with reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was being committed, at a time when no court had ever required more than reasonable suspicion for any search at the border.

Love to watch courts avoid thorny issues affecting the privacy of millions of travelers.

The appeals court says the Supreme Court only requires reasonable suspicion for border searches. This apparently still stands despite the extra protections extended to electronic devices by the Riley decision. The appeals court cites a 1985 Supreme Court decision in defense of its unwillingness to examine the issues raised in the year of our lord two-thousand nineteen. As the Seventh Circuit sees it, the government's interest in securing the borders will always be able to undermine Fourth Amendment protections -- even when this interest encompasses things that don't actually threaten the nation's security.

The final position the court takes -- at least in this case -- is that nothing more than reasonable suspicion is needed to perform any search at the border. And that's even if the "border" is an international airport, rather than a point of entry actually located on a border. It relies on the inaction of several other appeals courts to come to this conclusion, ensuring the zero-privacy status quo will live on for at least a few more years, falling well behind the advance of portable technology.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border search, cbp, dhs, privacy

CBP Detains 9-Year-Old US Citizen For 36 Hours, Accuses Her 14-Year-Old Brother Of Sex Trafficking

from the safest-border-ever dept

Today's example of the government's ugliness comes to us courtesy of Customs and Border Protection. There's a crisis at the border if the latest national emergency is to be believed (it isn't), and the only way to stop it is to ramp up enforcement. If this means tossing a 9-year-old American citizen in the clink, so be it.

A mother and her 9-year-old daughter were separated for 36 hours after the child fell into U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody because agents at the border didn't believe she was who she claimed to be, a mother says.

This debacle started the way something like this usually does: with US citizens engaged in activity they engage in every day. In this case, mother Thelma Galaxia's children were being driven from Tijuana to the border crossing in order to attend school in San Ysidro, California. This was the normal state of affairs for her 9-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son.

Traffic was heavy at the crossing so her friend told them to walk across the border to make sure they got to school on time. Both children were questioned by CBP officers. These officers decided 9-year-old Isabel Medina didn't resemble her passport photo. They accused her of actually being her cousin, Melanie.

That wasn't enough for the CBP. It also decided to terrorize her 14-year-old brother, Oscar, by accusing him of being a criminal.

Galaxia said officers made Oscar Medina sign a document that said his little sister was his cousin.

“That is not true,” Galaxia said. “She is my daughter. He was told that he would be taken to jail and they were going to charge him for human trafficking and sex trafficking.”

The intimidated 14-year-old signed the document, thus making the CBP officers technically correct in their assumptions. They now had a paper signed by a human trafficker family member stating that Isabel Medina was actually someone other than the person she actually was.

Galaxia's children might have been detained longer if she hadn't gone to the press. NBC7 reports the Mexican consulate contacted the station while Galaxia was being interviewed by journalists, saying the children were being released to her. Presumably, the station's requests for comment from the involved government agencies got the wheels rolling on her daughter's case. The CBP, meanwhile, has refused to comment on this detention, claiming it's still in the middle of investigating this incident.

It seems like one of the CBP officers might have tried to contact the children's parents to straighten this out. But I guess it's a lot easier to intimidate children into false confessions when there are no other adults around standing up for their rights or contradicting the CBP's assumptions.

Filed Under: cbp, children, immigration, isabel medina, overreaction, thelma galaxia, us citizens